Vatican II vs. Evangelical Contemporariness

[Tannhauser_1509]

In light of Vatican II’s ecumenical objectives, namely, reforming many of the Church’s customs, most especially the liturgy, with the goal of reaching an increasingly secularized world, what key difference is there between the Catholic Church’s liturgical evolution and, say, the Evangelical community’s tendency toward contemporary styles with the same ecumenical goals in mind?

 

[peter26]

Even following Vatican II, the Catholic Mass follows (when done according to the rubrics of course) a relatively rigid and formal structure. Evangelical services in my experience are less liturgical, there are less set prayers. A typical service will be dominated by a longer sermon (maybe half and hour or so), with a couple of Bible readings beforehand, and pretty much the rest of singing. Might have the Lord’s Prayer and maybe what we would call Bidding Prayers. The Creed is a maybe and perhaps some form of penitential rite. But otherwise, little in the way of set prayers. Its less structured and less formal and primarily about preaching and song. Communion will be offered less frequently (that’s a pretty much universal norm amongst protestants save for high church Anglicans and Lutherans), maybe only once a month. None of this is particularly done to reach out to people, but just because that’s how they like to do it. Personally, I get more out of the more structured approach of Mass, but I do miss the preaching.

 

[otjm]

In light of Vatican II’s ecumenical objectives, namely, reforming many of the Church’s customs, most especially the liturgy, with the goal of reaching an increasingly secularized world, what key difference is there between the Catholic Church’s liturgical evolution and, say, the Evangelical community’s tendency toward contemporary styles with the same ecumenical goals in mind?

Perhaps a look at part of Sacrosanctum Concilium might be in order, since your question seems to imply what the bishops of the world were desiring to do with the liturgy:

From Section 50:

“The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved. For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.”

There is nothing in there about “contemporary styles”; rather, it was a look at a liturgy which had gone through changes over about 1950 years or so, with, as noted, duplications or additions, as well as deletions.

In short, it was not an attempt to be “with it”.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

There is nothing in there about “contemporary styles”; rather, it was a look at a liturgy which had gone through changes over about 1950 years or so, with, as noted, duplications or additions, as well as deletions.

In short, it was not an attempt to be “with it”.

You make a crucial point, namely, that the liturgy exists so that we may appropriately encounter the mystery of God in worship. The aesthetics are aimed toward that purpose. Sometimes, simpler aesthetics make for a more fruitful encounter with the Body and Blood of Christ. But the substance is still there. I haven’t done a whole lot of reading on early Christian liturgies, but I’m very interested now to do some investigation. Personally, I think it’s beautiful that the Mass managed to aesthetically evolve to such a wonder as the Tridentine. In the future, as parishes develop their own customs, we may see such a refinement of the liturgy. In this area, I admire the creativity and diversity of the Eastern Church.

 

[twf]

As OTJM points out, Vatican II did not call for contemporary styles to appeal to a secular world; rather it called for certain, deliberate reforms to more easily facilitate active participation in the sacred rites by the faithful. Vatican II was very clear that while the vernacular could be introduced, Latin was to be preserved. It was also very clear that while certain culturally relevant styles of music could be introduced, if deemed appropriate for the holy sacrifice, Gregorian chant was to retain pride of place.
That all being said, local pastors on the ground did try to make the mass more appealing to a secular world, and took many cues from evangelicals - but the Council never called for this and many on this forum would argue those pastors went much, much farther than mandated by the Church.

 

[porthos11]

The following picture is of a Vatican II Mass (Ordinary Form). As one can see, there is no comparison with Evangelical services.

[edited]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ProVobis]

twf, I think you need to read the documents on ecumenism to see what the council fathers had in mind about the liturgy, catechism, and the general direction of the Church in terms of other religions and secularism in general. Simply looking at the first document has probably confused many, I think.