Viewpoint: Some Myths about Post-Vatican II Liturgical Reform

by Msgr. M. Francis Mannion

Perusing “conservative” liturgical websites, I find three recurring themes:

  • First, that Vatican Council II never intended Latin to be replaced by the vernacular;
  • Second, that Pope Paul VI made a huge mistake in approving so many liturgical changes after the Council; and,
  • Third, that people are generally unhappy with the post-Vatican II liturgy, so that the time is coming when the liturgy will be restored essentially to what it was before Vatican II.

First, the introduction of the vernacular. The Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy states: “The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (no. 36 #1). It then goes on to say: “But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings and in some prayers and chants” (#2).

Clearly the Council envisaged some use of the vernacular. To what extent? Article 36 answers this: “It is for the competent ecclesiastical authority… to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used. Its decrees have to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See” (#3).

This leaves open the question of how much of the liturgy may be in the vernacular. After the bishops who attended Vatican II returned to their dioceses, they began to experience the positive effects of a vernacular liturgy. This led Pope Paul VI to approve a very wide use of local languages.

That the reforms of Pope Paul VI in the matter of the vernacular went beyond what the Council intended is a questionable assertion. There is also the very important consideration that Pope Paul VI had the authority to be the principal interpreter of the conciliar decrees. Those who criticize Pope Paul VI often find themselves in the troublesome position of according their own personal opinions as much if not more authority than the Pope in the matter of interpreting and implementing Vatican II.

Second, the theory that Paul VI made a huge mistake in approving so many changes after Vatican II is, in my opinion, rash—and it is problematic, as I just mentioned, in that it accords personal interpretations of Vatican II unacceptable importance. Much criticism of post-Vatican II liturgical reform is historically ill-informed, out of touch with the pastoral benefits that came from Vatican II, and often ends up subtlety questioning the very legitimacy of the Council itself.

History cannot be undone. The liturgical reforms that came after Vatican II were not perfect, but they are what we have. Starting liturgical reform all over again (as is proposed in certain segments of the “reform the reform” movement) is as unrealistic as trying to put toothpaste back into the tube.

Third, the notion that there is widespread disillusionment among Catholics with the rites that came from Vatican II is erroneous. There are no reliable data to back up this belief. The mostly anecdotal data that do exist suggest otherwise. The vast majority of Catholics find the reformed rites spiritually edifying. They have no desire to return to Latin. They are incredulous at the idea and cannot imagine that they would again be required to hear and pray in a language they cannot understand. To restore the prayers and responses to Latin would likely backfire, and lead to great disturbance in the Church.

Msgr. Mannion is pastor emeritus of St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Salt Lake City. Reprinted by permission of Catholic News Agency.

Francis Mannion

Please leave a reply.

Comments

20 responses to “Viewpoint: Some Myths about Post-Vatican II Liturgical Reform”

  1. Joshua Vas

    A couple of thoughts:

    1) How would people even KNOW what the old rites are? They aren’t celebrated in the majority of parishes (and rarer than hen’s teeth in the developing world). The only people who have a basis of comparison are the (increasingly older) generation, and half the time (*not* all the time), the view is tinted by the frequently bad liturgical practice people were exposed to growing up, and whatever memories are retained of it

    2) I think one CAN criticize the pace of the reform without criticizing the reform itself. Was it really the best idea (acknowledging the competence and expertise of the periti) to have breakneck reform within half a decade, given the glacial pace of centuries? Would a longer period of time like 3-4 decades allowed a better critique and understanding of different proposals before being imposed on the whole world? A few of the ideas that were clearly motivated by some optimism of the time have, I think, shown themselves to be rather dated in recent years.

    3) Similarly, I think one can distinguish between the use of the Latin language and the rites themselves. Now, while I agree that most people would probably not want to go back to Latin, I think one can ask whether there are aspects (not the whole thing) of the older rites (which, as I said, people aren’t exposed to anyway) that could have been more profitably retained.

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      @Joshua Vas:

      2) I think one CAN criticize the pace of the reform without criticizing the reform itself. Was it really the best idea (acknowledging the competence and expertise of the periti) to have breakneck reform within half a decade, given the glacial pace of centuries? Would a longer period of time like 3-4 decades allowed a better critique and understanding of different proposals before being imposed on the whole world? A few of the ideas that were clearly motivated by some optimism of the time have, I think, shown themselves to be rather dated in recent years.

      Joshua,

      You probably won’t like this analogy, but I view what happened in the early years of the postconciliar reforms as being very similar to what happened on the other side of the Iron Curtain after the collapse of communism. In both cases, the head of steam that had been building up inside the pressure cooker was suddenly released. (Interestingly but coincidentally, the duration of the life of Communism post-Lenin was about the same as the duration of the Liturgical Movement from its 20th-century beginnings just before the First World War.)

      My point is this: when the lid came off the pressure cooker people went slightly mad in their joy at being set free. They did silly things. But having got these out of their system, things soon settled down. I remember doing things in those heady, pioneering days of the early 1970s that I would never do today. We all learn from our mistakes.

      If you want to “blame” anyone for the speed at which things changed, it must be the bishops of the world, who reacted swiftly to the liturgical reforms and the move to the vernacular and demanded more and more. (See Marini’s A Challenging Reform for documentation.) They saw the pastoral benefits very quickly, but did not understand the liturgical principles underpinning the reforms. Their “fault” was that they did not at the same time educate people, so that in some cases things got a little derailed.

      So you have a chain of consequences: the bishops did not educate the priests because they themselves did not understand the liturgical principles involved. The priests did not educate the laity because the bishops had not educated them. And that lack of education led to dissatisfaction in some quarters, with a tiny minority leading a rebellion that eventually culminated in the ill-judged release of Summorum Pontificum.

      The question we need to ask ourselves is this: who should have been responsible for educating the bishops? Their pastoral instincts were very sound, even if their liturgical knowledge was lacking. That unanswered question remains just as urgent today. The bishop is the “chief liturgist” in his own diocese, even when he has no liturgical savvy whatsoever.

      In my view, the best chief liturgists are those bishops with sound pastoral instincts who allow themselves to be formed by the pastoral liturgists around them. But some bishops issue edicts that have no basis in liturgical studies whatsoever.

      The bishop is supposed to be a teacher, but when the teacher is woefully ignorant of a basic field in the life of the Church, what does one do? I encounter many bishops who have excellent pastoral instincts, but their view of liturgy is formed by what they experience in parishes. They form their own opinions about what they like and what they dislike, but these preferences are often not grounded in sound liturgical principles. Seldom is it that they are prepared to sit down and discuss liturgy with a pastoral liturgist, whether the director of worship for the diocese or someone else.

      So, in the same way that clergy have (or should have!) in-service formation, perhaps the Church might move towards in-service formation for its bishops too, and make liturgy an essential component of that. Once you start doing that, then it trickles down. Priests who see their bishop doing something (for example, appraisal) are more inclined to do it themselves. And when that happens, lay people follow suit. In the end, everyone benefits.

      At the moment, we have the reverse situation. Lay people are often better liturgically-educated than their priests and bishops, but trickles only move downwards, not upwards. The result of that can be frustration on the part of lay people, and resultant frustration on the part of the clergy too. We desperately need to do whatever we can to remove those frustrations and ensure that everyone works peaceably together.

      Reply
  2. Doug O'Neill

    This is a good piece, but I wonder if we could have some clarification regarding the third point? After all, the language and rite are two separate issues (albeit intertwined with one another), so saying “return to Latin” is confusing, because Latin never really left. Msgr. also says “required to hear and pray in a language they cannot understand,” but then specifically refers to prayers and responses in Latin. I would assume that he means things like the presidential prayers and dialogues – would he include something like the Mass XVIII Sanctus that the documents encourage all Catholics to learn? (I doubt it, because I recall him responding in a column about using a Latin Ordinary in a vernacular Mass, and he said there was no problem at all). What about choral propers in Latin, for which the people can follow a translation? I think the degree to which those things would cause disturbance very much depends on the local community. I understand that Msgr. Mannion is writing for the general public, many of whom don’t really care about these fine points, but I think on a liturgy blog these points might merit some consideration, so we don’t misinterpret him?

    Reply
  3. Stanislaus Kosala

    I agree that 1 and 3 are myths (2 seems more an opinion than a myth), but I do believe that they have their counterpart myths that they feed off of:

    1. Vatican II forbade the use of Latin in the Liturgy.

    3. Approval over the switch to the vernacular extended into approval over things like stripping churches of iconography, disparagement of devotions, creativity on the part of presidents, etc. (my personal hunch is that if you were to do a study of the disappearance of devotional practices in the post-vatican ii era you would that practice of the faith declined to a greater extent in those areas where popular piety disappeared than in those where it was maintained)

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Stanislaus Kosala:
      Stanislaus,

      I agree that the three things you name are myths. But I rather doubt that many Pray Tell readers still hold to such misconceptions. I think these misconceptions kind of had their heyday long ago and most have moved beyond them. But I grant that people are in many different places, especially people in the pews who don’t read things like Pray Tell.

      awr

      Reply
      1. Stanislaus Kosala

        @Anthony Ruff, OSB:
        I hope that you’re right. I still do think that historically these two sets of myths have fed off of one another. Hopefully, as one set of myths dies off, so will the other.

    2. Sean Peters

      @Stanislaus Kosala:

      Iconoclasm alone probably drove quite a few people out of the Catholic Church. Catholics I’ve spoken with who were around in those days still have vivid memories of how their churches looked before the 60s and 70s. It’s the same story today, the difference being that churches are being closed instead of altars ripped out: the dioceses and clergy have their own ideas and ignore the sacrifices of the laity.

      Reply
      1. Stanislaus Kosala

        @Sean Peters:

        While I’ve met many people who have said that they loved the switch to the vernacular, I have never met anyone who said that they were so happy that the reredos was ripped out and smashed, or that the frescoes in their parish church were washed over, or that adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was discontinued. (I’m sure people exist but I wouldn’t be surprised if their numbers were comparable to those who wanted a return to the pre-Vatican II liturgy)

      2. Jack Wayne

        @Sean Peters:
        I’ve often been surprised by the cruel way a lot of churches were remodeled – and such things really should get more coverage by those writing about the liturgical reform. It’s not unusual to hear that altars and statues were removed and destroyed without consulting the people – as well as parishes that had to “fight” the bishop to keep their old high altars and communion rails.

        As for the myths discussed in the above article – I agree that a distinction should be made between language and rite when discussing the success of the overall liturgical reform. I bet a lot of people were happy about the switch to vernacular – but how thrilled were they by the truncated Confiteor? The reduction in the “Domine non sum dignus” from three to one? The move from a ninefold kyrie to a sixfold one? Moving the final blessing to before the dismissal? The calendar revisions? The creation of a penitential rite? Etc. How did those changes – the real changes to the wording and rubrics of the rite itself – affect or not affect the people? Is there evidence that people loved and adored these changes and might have left were it not for them? Or if those changes largely didn’t matter to most people – then what made them worth the cost?

  4. Jared Ostermann

    I have a similar take to Stanislaus – it seems that so much of the liturgical conversation revolves around untenable hyperbolic statements. Although, as Fr. Anthony notes, not so much in more educated circles. One person says “Vatican II got rid of Latin!” to which someone else responds “Vatican Council II never intended Latin to be replaced by the vernacular.” “Everyone loves the new Mass!” “Everyone is unhappy with the new Mass!” It’s always tempting to respond to one hyperbole with an equal and opposite hyperbole, but it’s never really helpful…
    The more disturbing thing to me is the quick shift in some circles toward complete repudiation of the Novus Ordo as a failed mistake. I’ve followed blogs from all over the liturgical spectrum for years, but I was still taken completely by surprise by this movement. It seemed to be sparked entirely by fear about what Pope Francis MIGHT do in the future liturgically. So I suppose it was a hypothetical hyperbolic pair? Pope Francis might discontinue the Extraordinary Form! NO – let’s discontinue the Ordinary Form!
    My only other thought here is that all three myths discussed by Msgr Mannion fail to differentiate between the rite itself and the legitimate options for its implementation. There is such a wide range of options available in the Ordinary Form (from language to music to levels of solemnity) that it is illogical to attack the rite simply because you take issue with its implementation. Again, I don’t fully understand how or why certain more traditional (not necessarily traditionalist) websites and organizations did an instant about face from advocating better implementation to throwing out the Ordinary Form entirely as a “failed experiment.”

    Reply
  5. Rev. Ronald C Chochol

    I recently returned from a three-week tour of Vietnam sponsored by the Vietnam chapter of Veterans for Peace, comprised of six Ameri- can veterans of the Vietnam War who live there. We met many people, veterans and others affected by Agent Orange and unexploded bombs and mines. We were able to get a feel for the people, their culture, and their land. I was also able to participate at Mass in Vietnamese (the Ordinary Form) in Hanoi and Danang. The two churches were overflowing with people and enthusiasm. The overall experience of the terrible impact of our actions on the Vietnamese, of their graciousness, and of their resilience was almost overwhelming. It also puts in perspective conversations like the above. BUT what was pertinent to the topic under discussion here is the fact that of the 16 people on the tour from all over the USA, at least half of them were born and raised Catholic, while only one of them was currently an active participant in Church life. In the course of the three weeks I had an opportunity to speak individually with each of them more than once. We eventually got around to their acknowledging that they were Catholic but no longer participating in the worship of the Church on Sunday. As we talked about what had drawn/pushed them away and what was keeping them away, they mentioned one or more of the following familiar reasons: poor preaching, domineering pastors, their voices not being heard, clergy sexual abuse, attitudes toward the role of women, specific teachings (e.g., contraception), their divorces, Church attitudes towards gays, their own laziness, etc. BUT NOT ONCE DID ANY OF THEM SAY THAT IT WAS BECAUSE WE NO LONGER USED THE RITE IN LATIN THEY HAD EXPERIENCED BEFORE 1970. If I were still serving in a parish, I would love to have them. But I would have to go out and find them because they are not coming to us. The change that is needed is not to go back to the former rite in Latin, but for their pastors and lay associates to go out to listen to them, again and again and …

    Reply
  6. Peter Kwasniewski

    Time will tell.

    Reply
  7. Halbert Weidner

    Thanks for these posts. I thought that PTB needed to go over this but it was too polite to do it. I get tired of the constant battering from the holders of the myths about the damage the Council or Pope Paul VI did.
    I would add that ONE thing still gets over looked: the move from the SILENT MASS was the real radical change. I hear an isolated person from time to time say I miss hearing the Latin Mass. But nobody but the altar boy HEARD anything. More over, I was one of the radicals who brought a hand missal with me. Most of the congregation heard nothing and said nothing. It was said in Latin but who knew?

    Reply
  8. Aaron Sanders

    #1 is too ambiguously worded to adjudicate. If “never intended Latin to be replaced” is taken to mean replaced “at all,” then it is clearly a myth because the council expressly provides for the use of vernacular languages. But if that phrase is taken to mean “replaced entirely” – as has indubitably happened in many American churches – then it is clearly true, for the conciliar constitution expressly mandates that “use of the Latin language […] is to be preserved.” In my own experience, most people who might make an imprecise assertion such as that presented by the Monsignor intend that latter sense, opposing Joe Catholic’s “the Council did away with that Latin mumbo-jumbo” with “no, the Council never said we ought to chuck it out.”

    #2 seems far too un-testable to call a myth since its falsification requires ahistorical speculation. There are too many factors at play to establish cause/effect and then assign praise/blame for the transformations in Catholic life to this single factor. Calling someone’s *opinion* about the prudence or effects of Paul VI’s liturgical reforms a “myth” seems an overreaction – just dispute it, and support that opposing opinion with solid evidence.

    #3 is mythological as far as it goes, because as is rightly noted there is no empirical data to back it up (not to mention the incredibly low likelihood, IMHO, of any reversion in liturgical forms in the near future). But why veer into opposing hyperbole to claim “The vast majority of Catholics find the reformed rites spiritually edifying”? We know for a fact that the vast majority of self-identified Catholics (75-90% in the West) don’t find the rites sufficiently edifying to bother showing up. And of those who do attend, their current contentment with liturgical practice does not rule out hypothetically equal or higher satisfaction with other practice(s). It is odd to imagine the Catholic world waiting to erupt in traddy resurgence, but that doesn’t mean we ought to embrace opposing exaggerations.

    Reply
    1. Charles Day

      @Aaron Sanders:
      You say: ” We know for a fact that the vast majority of self-identified Catholics (75-90% in the West) don’t find the rites sufficiently edifying to bother showing up.” And you also say: “There are too many factors at play to establish cause/effect and then assign praise/blame for the transformations in Catholic life to this single factor.” aren’t you cherry-picking your arguments here? Go back and reread # 7. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of reasons why identified Catholics do not attend that have nothing to do with the liturgy one way or another.

      Reply
    2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Aaron Sanders:
      Hi Aaron,

      I like your comment in general but want to be just a bit ‘lawyerly’ on one point. When the Council said that Latin is to be preserved, they didn’t say where or when or how much. it is certainly preserved in some places and some of the time in the Church as a whole, even if many or most parishes never use Latin.

      And of course, some would raise the larger hermeneutical issue of how the most weighty principles of reform relate to the specific directions. Some argue that the latter (such as use of Latin or Gregorian chant) are outweighed by the former and even can be cancelled by them in their ongoing implementation. I have the impression that Paul VI believed something like that in the approval of all-vernacular liturgy.

      I’m no ideological opponent of Latin or Gregorian chant in post-conciliar worship- I’ve quadrupled the number of Latin Mass ordinaries in our choir stall books in conjunction with the new Missal, and there is probably 5 times more Latin chant in our abbey worship than 20 years ago because of my efforts.

      I’m just pointing to the complexity and ambiguity in interpreting Vatican II, which includes a caution about making any claim too strongly.

      awr

      Reply
  9. Aaron Sanders

    Charles Day : @Aaron Sanders: You say: ” We know for a fact that the vast majority of self-identified Catholics (75-90% in the West) don’t find the rites sufficiently edifying to bother showing up.” And you also say: “There are too many factors at play to establish cause/effect and then assign praise/blame for the transformations in Catholic life to this single factor.” aren’t you cherry-picking your arguments here? Go back and reread # 7. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of reasons why identified Catholics do not attend that have nothing to do with the liturgy one way or another.

    I’m not trying to say “the reformed rites must not be edifying because people don’t come” or “people don’t come because the rites are not edifying.” Instead, I’m making the more limited claim that if one is going to denounce “disillusionment” as a “myth” on the grounds that a “vast majority” find the OF “spiritually edifying,” then “edifying” ought to have some teeth to it. If I choose not to do something even though I’m required to do it under pain of sin, I don’t think I value the edification derived from that activity highly enough for it to be significant in refuting a “myth” of disaffection. I’m not dissatisfied with my local symphony, but then again I’ve never heard them play – smells fishy if you use my (technical) lack of dissatisfaction to quell criticism of the symphony’s performance level/organization.

    Reply
  10. Aaron Sanders

    Anthony Ruff, OSB : @Aaron Sanders: Hi Aaron, I like your comment in general but want to be just a bit ‘lawyerly’ on one point. When the Council said that Latin is to be preserved, they didn’t say where or when or how much. it is certainly preserved in some places and some of the time in the Church as a whole, even if many or most parishes never use Latin.

    Fair enough, and a good use of lawerly precision. At a certain point we strain the bounds of credibility (would one congregation in the world making the sign of the cross in Latin on one Wednesday a year would technically fulfill the mandate of “preservation” at a minimal level?!) but having “centers” of Latin (cathedrals/monasteries as the best contenders) is indeed one plausible minimum.

    Reply
  11. Bruce Janiga

    People don’t always make a distinction between the Vatican Documents themselves and later decrees, etc. that developed the work of the Council and tried to make it work in concrete situations. These documents came from the bishops and the pope and were viewed as part of the resulting work that had to be done to carry out the wishes of the fathers of the Council. Much work had to be done after the Council adjourned and this included making decisions about use of the vernacular. So while VCII called for preserving Latin later documents called for more use of the vernacular.

    Reply
  12. Tom Hayes

    Where the discussion of the wider world? Since the 60’s, women gained positions of authority almost universally, throwing into a dim-light the patriarchal hierarchy; ethnic Catholics moved to the burbs and sent their kids to public schools so their ties to the “church of the community” are lessened and their best friends are now non-Catholic, even non-Christian; vastly increased numbers of people receive not only undergraduate but graduate degrees so that the parish priest often turns out to be one of less educated members of the parish; the Wal-martization of America has trained people to value convenience and ease of access over commitment so we can pick the local church, whatever the denomination; and then so many church leaders bought into the individualism that Ronald Reagan was selling–how do you build community when people glorify rugged individualism? And with the challenges of (and our fractured response to) divorce, pre-marital relations, reproductive issues, the emptying of the LGBT closets, we’re lucky we have anyone going to church.

    The number of people staying away simply because of the liturgical changes? They could meet in a phone booth–but, of course, we don’t have phone booths anymore.

    Reply

Posted

in

,

by

Francis Mannion

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading