What Documents Actually Changed the Liturgy

[smndtupidisaftr]

Sacrosanctum Conilium was very vague in its recommendations and alluded to future documents that would actually change the liturgy, but I have never seen those documents, only the GIRM. Are there other documents out there that state explicitly what changed in the liturgy after Vatican II?

 

[MarkThompson]

Sacrosanctum Conilium was very vague in its recommendations and alluded to future documents that would actually change the liturgy, but I have never seen those documents, only the GIRM. Are there other documents out there that state explicitly what changed in the liturgy after Vatican II?

Yes, various orders were issued in the wake of the Council by the Sacred Congregation of Rites (for example, Musicam Sacram (1967)) and the by the Consilium that Pope Paul appointed to modify the liturgy. Ultimately the changes would culminate in the promulgation of the 1970 Missale Romanum, which is itself a “document]” that “actually change[d] the liturgy.”

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Here are some documents I’ve found.

Inter oecumenici
Instruction on implementing liturgical norms
Consilium (of Sacred Congregation of Rites) - September 26, 1964

adoremus.org/Interoecumenici.html

With this gem

1. The Holy See alone can grant permission for use of the vernacular in those parts of the Mass that the celebrant sings or recites alone.

1. Pastors shall carefully see to it that the Christian faithful, especially members of lay religious institutes, also know how to recite or sing together in Latin, mainly with simple melodies, the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass proper to them.

To be fair, this document allowed much more vernacular than was alluded to in SC. However, 59 seems to be almost universally ignored by the hierarchy.

1. The choir and organ shall occupy a place clearly showing that the singers and the organist form part of the united community of the faithful and allowing them best to fulfill their part in the liturgy.

In other words, no longer in the back of the church? This statement seems contradictory to me. The choir is supposed to be a big part of the liturgy, no doubt, but they are not supposed to be the focus. Why then, would you want them to have more of a presence, which would naturally lead to more focus on them?

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
ISSUED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI

MISSALE ROMANUM

ON NEW ROMAN MISSAL

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

We are fully confident that both priests and faithful will prepare their hearts more devoutly and together at the Lord’s Supper, meditating more profoundly on Sacred Scripture, and at the same time they will nourish themselves more day by day with the words of the Lord. It will follow then that according to the wishes of the Second Vatican Council, Sacred Scripture will be at the same time a perpetual source of spiritual life, an instrument of prime value for transmitting Christian doctrine and finally the center of all theology.

You can sense an excitement over these reforms that great changes were going to occur. I wonder how they felt a few years later?

And I also notice a continued emphasis on the ancient sources, a seeming longing for that before medieval developments. This would appear to be a large discord from what Pope Benedict says about not ignoring medieval developments in favor of the ancient. He says we should value all, but not forego more recent developments in complete favor of the ancient.

In all, I can see a source of confusion over these documents. The GIRM, at least, is much more rigorous, but I can see some merit in the argument that much of the problem stems from how vague these documents are.

 

[AndrewRaZ]

Conciliar documents tend to be purposefully vague when defining specifics of liturgical celebrations, because the liturgy does change and evolve, and celebrations do vary (licitly) with cultures and geography.

There’s a number of very large compilations of the documents out there:

Austin Flannery has translated (or possibly overseen translation) of most of the conciliar and post-conciliar documents. There are a number of volumes. Volume 1, The Concilar and Post-Conciliar Documents, has the 16 documents, and another 49 post-conciliar documents related to them. Volume 2, Vatican Council II, More Post-Conciliar Documents, has, you guessed it, more post-conciliar documents. I’m having trouble finding the actual amazon listings on them, rather than the quick-and-dirty 3rd-party store listings. I know they’re not out of print. Just about any Catholic bookstore should be able to get them, or have them in stock.

Another creatively titled source is Documents On The Liturgy 1963-1979 : Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts. I picked it up fortuitously for 25 cents, and two weeks later was told by a co-worker in our diocese that it is out of print, and he paid a bunch for his copy. He told me that in evaluating the liturgy at the parish to see if they’re following the instructions, that has been his go-to book for that time period. I have not had a chance to even open it, so I have no idea what is in it (it may perhaps have overlap with the other two volumes listed above).

There are some earlier texts (such as Musicae Sacrae, Tra le sollecitudini, and others), which still very much apply, but won’t be included in either series. It can be very involved reading and research, but that should keep you busy for a couple days at least.

 

[JerryZ]

Here are some documents I’ve found.
In other words, no longer in the back of the church? This statement seems contradictory to me. The choir is supposed to be a big part of the liturgy, no doubt, but they are not supposed to be the focus. Why then, would you want them to have more of a presence, which would naturally lead to more focus on them?

Well one way to look at it is that the choir should not be hidden in the back out of sight but should be part of the congregation. Not a “focus” of the liturgy but neither separated from it. They are participant in it!