Sacrosanctum Concilium

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

On Mark’s advice I gave Sacrosanctum Concilium from the Second Vatican Council another read. I remember reading it years ago and not getting much out of it. With more time (and hopefully wisdom) along with new information (my research into the Latin Mass) I’d like to re-examine this document and get the traditional Catholic perspective. This is the document that was used to base the new Mass upon so I’m hoping to hear the other side of the story.

For your reference: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

It seems to me the Church fathers were striving to achieve four things: Simplified rites, Active participation, Adaptations and Options, along with more Scripture. Forty years later, have they succeeded? Are we better off? Is it too early to say?

For those who remember, what was a typical Sunday in the pews like prior to these reforms? I’ve heard stories of people falling asleep (one of the reasons for the bells…so I’m told) others saying the Rosary (not that the Rosary is a bad thing).

Did you know what was going on? Were the rites foreign to you?
Assuming you weren’t asleep or saying your Rosary, how would you describe your participation level?
Do the options enrich your worship experience?
Do you know more Bible now than you did then?

On this last question I think, if there was a problem with Catholics not knowing enough Scripture, why didn’t the Pope just write a document calling for more Bible studies or something?

Anyway, your civil and charitable responses will be most appreciated.

 

[GloriousOrder]

At first, I was very worried by rumours of people lapsing into inattentive rosary-praying during the Tridentine Form. If it was all that “uninvolved”, as they say, it seemed to be a very pompous and pharisee-like exercise in elitism (the Mass). Naturally, in my naieve personality, I thought this issue must have been fixed because no one ever talks about it anymore. All this assumption changed when, a few weeks ago, I observed an elderly couple praying the rosary during a “low” weekday Mass at the cathedral. A young Baptist-convert was also saying his (though he seems to be saying his constantly ) during the readings and homily.

There is no way to cure a lack of absorption in anything. Even the holiest movements of men on Earth outside the gates of eternity will not merit some peoples’ attention.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

I’d like to discuss several points in this document - here’s the first:

---

1. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration.

---

Does this mean that prior to the reforms people were physically present but not mentally? Were they indeed strangers to the Mass having a poor understanding of the rites and prayers?

 

[dmorgan]

As important as Sacrosanctum Concilium was, what happened after the close of the council may be even more so. See the link;

newliturgicalmovement.org/#7616998409149630990

The titles referenced in the article along with “Iota Unum” will give you a fair idea of what happened after the Council, which led to the Novus Ordo of today. Regardless of how one argues the merits of V-II, what happened in the comities led to the New Mass, not SC.

 

[laszlo]

For your reference: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

It seems to me the Church fathers were striving to achieve four things: **Simplified rites, Active participation, Adaptations and Options, along with more Scripture. **Forty years later, have they succeeded? Are we better off? Is it too early to say?

.

From the highlighted goals the options was not goal; neither was the not listed people’s facing table. Neither is mentioned in the text.

The adaptations meant that different cultures (Africans, Japanese) may develop their own slightly different variations, not the break of the uniformity for the Western world.

Our pope’s analysis (Milestones pp121-124) is that this was the first accepted Constitution because everybody agreed with the principles of the change necessary in the liturgy; the question itself was not central.

Outside of the options, the three processions (Entrance, Offering, Communion) and the people facing table the change from the pew is minuscule: omitting psalm42, change the readings to better, change the controversial double offering what the traditional offertory is, contract the communion of the priest and the people. The first and last of this changes was made in 1967 still using the 1962 Missal.

I attend with my wife alternately TLM and new rite. The new rite is w/o the offertory procession, toward the tabernacle, and with full reverence w/o options (always Confiteor and Roman Canon). She converted recently from Lutheran and fully understands the English rite; unable to participate with the Latin. She perceive things primarily hearing them like about 40% of the people. Visuals (an another 40% ) may not have this problem. Doers (who have to do things to participate; the remainder 20%) are better of with the new rite as lectors, extraordinary Eucharistic ministers.

 

[dmorgan]

I’d like to discuss several points in this document - here’s the first:

---

1. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration.

---

Does this mean that prior to the reforms people were physically present but not mentally? Were they indeed strangers to the Mass having a poor understanding of the rites and prayers?

I own four different Missals from prior V-II, along with several post V-II St. Joseph missals showing both the early changes to the Mass and the original Novus Ordo. The pre V-II Missals are Latin-English, are easily read and follow the Rite perfectly. I find it difficult to believe that most parishioners would have been ignorant of the rubrics of the Mass. One could pray the Mass along with the Priest.
As far as being inattentive, I seriously doubt that the average pewsitter of 1960 was any less involved than the average pewsitter today.

 

[ProVobis]

I own four different Missals from prior V-II, along with several post V-II St. Joseph missals showing both the early changes to the Mass and the original Novus Ordo. The pre V-II Missals are Latin-English, are easily read and follow the Rite perfectly. I find it difficult to believe that most parishioners would have been ignorant of the rubrics of the Mass. One could pray the Mass along with the Priest.
As far as being inattentive, I seriously doubt that the average pewsitter of 1960 was any less involved than the average pewsitter today.

That (bolded) is the key point. Saying prayers at the Mass is not necessarily PRAYING THE MASS. The Mass consists of a) reading the texts and responding silently or otherwise; b) performing the required rubrics; and 3) working to understand what is happening. The reading is prayer, the rubrics are prayers, and working to understand the Latin is a prayer. Kneeling, standing, and even sitting still can be construed as prayers as well, all in the context of praying the Mass.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Ok, so what was going on in the pews prior to the printing press, literacy, or missals being readily available? Did our fellow Catholics know what was going on? Were they just silent observers?

 

[zab]

Ok, so what was going on in the pews prior to the printing press, literacy, or missals being readily available? Did our fellow Catholics know what was going on? Were they just silent observers?

I don’t think any of those folks are still alive to share with us their experiences. I was a child when the Mass was changed to the vernacular. We use the St. Joseph’s Missals that were available in the pews. Latin on the left side. English translated on the right. I had no difficulty understanding what was going on.

 

[ProVobis]

Ok, so what was going on in the pews prior to the printing press, literacy, or missals being readily available? Did our fellow Catholics know what was going on? Were they just silent observers?

I would imagine the priests still gave sermons, teachers taught, people prayed, and parents disciplined.

The people apparently understood the Mass and what it represented. Just without modern conveniences as we know them.

 

[laszlo]

I don’t think any of those folks are still alive to share with us their experiences. I was a child when the Mass was changed to the vernacular. We use the St. Joseph’s Missals that were available in the pews. Latin on the left side. English translated on the right. I had no difficulty understanding what was going on.

In Hungary, and I believe in most of the world, people did not had bilingual Missals. When I went to the seminary in 1956 out of 12 freshmen only I and one other had daily Missal, I get it from my father, my classmate inherited from his uncle who was priest. There were no missals in the pews. From the Seminary we got the Liber Usualis to follow the Mass in Latin.

People knew that the important part of the Mass are the Offertory (the bell was ringed when it started), the Consecration, and the Communion of the priest. There were quite a few who arrived to the end of the sermon, and left after the communion of the priest. Some people walked the stations of the cross (only presence was required), some prayed prayers from their books, some prayed the rosary.

What people understood it was that the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ redone in bloodless way by the priest. They did not feel it as their own, or that they have any part in it.

Most of the Masses were low masses without any singing, vernacular reading or sermon. The TLM today, almost always Missa Cantata, people participating with postures, and almost everybody receiving communion - is significantly different from the traditional mass, where the only required postures were to stand for the Gospel and kneel for the consecration. Above that everyone was on his/her own. Usually people sat in the pews, stood on the aisles. Usually 20% or less received communion, those who confessed before or during the mass.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

In Hungary, and I believe in most of the world, people did not had bilingual Missals. When I went to the seminary in 1956 out of 12 freshmen only I and one other had daily Missal, I get it from my father, my classmate inherited from his uncle who was priest. There were no missals in the pews. From the Seminary we got the Liber Usualis to follow the Mass in Latin.

People knew that the important part of the Mass are the Offertory (the bell was ringed when it started), the Consecration, and the Communion of the priest. There were quite a few who arrived to the end of the sermon, and left after the communion of the priest. Some people walked the stations of the cross (only presence was required), some prayed prayers from their books, some prayed the rosary.

What people understood it was that the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ redone in bloodless way by the priest. They did not feel it as their own, or that they have any part in it.

Most of the Masses were low masses without any singing, vernacular reading or sermon. The TLM today, almost always Missa Cantata, people participating with postures, and almost everybody receiving communion - is significantly different from the traditional mass, where the only required postures were to stand for the Gospel and kneel for the consecration. Above that everyone was on his/her own. Usually people sat in the pews, stood on the aisles. Usually 20% or less received communion, those who confessed before or during the mass.

laszlo,

It is almost like hearing my older friends & family talking about Mass in the US
from the 1920’s until the after Council.
I have seen pictures of my local parish
(where my grandparents & mother all went to school)
and heard many stories about the men standng outside on the steps,
talking & smoking during Mass, to only come in when the first bell was rung,
stay for the consecration and then leave without receiving communion,
but, they were fulfilling their obligation!
I could tell lots more stories, and most of them are very similar,
it was all about the obligation!

I think that the point of the council,
and of Sacrosantum Concilim was to help change this mind-set.
IMHO, it needed to be changed.
I do not believe that God wants us to love & praise Him
because we have to.
Actually, I think that He is much more pleased when I do things because
I want to.

Has the last 40 or so years been easy? No

Have a lot of things happened in the name of the “spirit of VII”,
that are not what the council called for? You bet!

I imagine, once word got around, that the people in the pews were just as mad/confused as some of us are now, after Trent codified the Mass and did away with things that people had done for generations. The difference, they did not have the instant communication of the internet and video cameras on their cell phones to expose liturgical abuse!!

At Trent, the pendulum sung all the way to the right.
After VII, it seemed to swing all the way over to the left.
It needs to bounce a few times, back & forth, until it comes to rest in the middle.

And the only way that will ever happen is if both sides work together instead of try to divide.

 

[laszlo]

I think that the point of the council,
and of Sacrosantum Concilim was to help change this mind-set.
IMHO, it needed to be changed.
I do not believe that God wants us to love & praise Him
because we have to.
Actually, I think that He is much more pleased when I do things because
I want to.

My understanding is that the change was started by St Pius X, who started to emphasize the active participation. The idea was not regulated and the masses became different from Church to Church. During the sixties this became chaos.

The council wanted uniformity, It is not only my observation so write the pope too (Milestones) that when the missal came out in 1970 almost everybody welcomed it, in hope that the uniformity will be restored at least in the Western Word.

The tragedy is, that instead of the uniformity, what the liturgy should be, many priests, liturgical committees believe that the mass is the place to live out their creativity, and that creativity tends toward the easy way: to honor the human success and to forget about God.

We can see some revolution against this, but it will be successful only if people start to think together, to work for the common goal. The recent disunity in the traditional side is as bad as the disunity in the liturgy in the other side. We all have to find the balance

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

In Hungary, and I believe in most of the world, people did not had bilingual Missals. When I went to the seminary in 1956 out of 12 freshmen only I and one other had daily Missal, I get it from my father, my classmate inherited from his uncle who was priest. There were no missals in the pews. From the Seminary we got the Liber Usualis to follow the Mass in Latin.

People knew that the important part of the Mass are the Offertory (the bell was ringed when it started), the Consecration, and the Communion of the priest. There were quite a few who arrived to the end of the sermon, and left after the communion of the priest. Some people walked the stations of the cross (only presence was required), some prayed prayers from their books, some prayed the rosary.

What people understood it was that the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ redone in bloodless way by the priest. They did not feel it as their own, or that they have any part in it.

Most of the Masses were low masses without any singing, vernacular reading or sermon. The TLM today, almost always Missa Cantata, people participating with postures, and almost everybody receiving communion - is significantly different from the traditional mass, where the only required postures were to stand for the Gospel and kneel for the consecration. Above that everyone was on his/her own. Usually people sat in the pews, stood on the aisles. Usually 20% or less received communion, those who confessed before or during the mass.

Thank you for sharing your experience Lazlo. This is exactly what I’ve come here looking for. It is so important to maintain a connection with our past, our history, to respect our elders by knowing their stories and experiences. Thank you so much.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

At Trent, the pendulum sung all the way to the right.
After VII, it seemed to swing all the way over to the left.
It needs to bounce a few times, back & forth, until it comes to rest in the middle.

And the only way that will ever happen is if both sides work together instead of try to divide.

Wow. That sums things up perfectly. Along with Mark’s floodgate analogy I have indeed gained insight and hopefully wisdom into this chapter of our Church’s history. Thank you.

 

[ProVobis]

What people understood it was that the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ redone in bloodless way by the priest. They did not feel it as their own, or that they have any part in it.

Most of the Masses were low masses without any singing, vernacular reading or sermon. The TLM today, almost always Missa Cantata, people participating with postures, and almost everybody receiving communion - is significantly different from the traditional mass, where the only required postures were to stand for the Gospel and kneel for the consecration. Above that everyone was on his/her own. Usually people sat in the pews, stood on the aisles. Usually 20% or less received communion, those who confessed before or during the mass.

I would take issue with this. People realized then (as many still do) that sitting still is being most respectful to what’s going on. It’s definitely a part of being there and could be construed as a prayer in itself, part of praying the Mass. And knowing when not to receive is an important element in Catholic upbringing. It’s the society that attends parties and political rallies and sports events that feels like the only way they can be heard is by making noise.

 

[Warrenton]

There is no way to cure a lack of absorption in anything. Even the holiest movements of men on Earth outside the gates of eternity will not merit some peoples’ attention:

I hesitate to critisize anyone for praying the rosary during mass. The rosary tells the story of the life of Christ, and the mass fulfills the purpose of his life.

The idea that we “understand” the mass is open to misinterpretation. We can understand what the mass does, and we can understand the symbols. But the “how” of the mass is totally beyond human understanding. Not even St. Thomas Aquinas could say “how” God becomes present in the Blessed Sacrament, or “how” it transmits grace to us. All we really know is “that it does.”

We do not know, and cannot know, why Christ instituted the sacrifice we know instead of some other sacrifice. The thing is intimately bound up with the very mind of God; who of us can fathom it?

There are many ways to serve, and many ways to pray. Think of the woman who washed Christ’s feet with her hair and tears. I imagine that she wasn’t paying any attention to the apostles’ talk, or even to Christ’s words in reply. She offered her sorrow to our Lord: all she had, as far as we know. Hers is one of the most perfect prayers ever made in the whole history of the world.

Some of the other members on this thread and I have discussed these issues before. It is why, traditional as I try to be, I do not favor suppressions and why I support the charismatic movement, though personally I have deep reservations about it. Catholics have a long history of permitting many different forms of devotion, even devotions within devotions.

If the council fathers had the desire to “regularize” the mass experience, in terms of dictating how people pray during the mass, then to that point, it seems to me that they were products of the times, and were mistaken.