As promised, this time we will look at those forces that led up to and were a part of Vatican II. Beginning about the 8th Century the people no longer understood Latin as a common language. Thus, they developed their own devotions and rituals, many of which survive to this day. Mass attendance was, as we have seen, focused more specifically on either viewing or receiving the Blessed Sacrament, and less on participating actively. In fact, at times it was impossible to even see what was happening as the rood screen blocked the view of the congregation so that the actions at the altar were completely hidden.
As the reform movement in France and Italy developed during the early 1920s there was a distinct feeling that the Liturgy, at least in these countries, no longer spoke to the people. Attendance was down, although to be fair it had always been rather haphazard throughout most of Europe since the early 1700s. We in the United States tend to view the Church here as if it were a representative portion of the Church as a whole. Nothing could be further from the truth! American Catholics have always been far more active in the Church, attended Mass more regularly, and toed the Vatican line more precisely than anywhere else in the world except, possibly, for Ireland in the 1800s. For those interested in more on this, see American Catholic by Charles R. Morris (1997, Times Books, New York).
As the 1950s rolled around, many bishops in Europe and elsewhere were seriously concerned about the state of the Liturgy. Even in the United States there was beginning to be some pressure for liturgical change. The problem, as the bishops saw it, was that the people were "doing their own thing" during the Mass. Many prayed the rosary or did other private devotions, simply biding time until Mass was over. At many of the Masses late in the morning communion was not even offered to the people with the only recipient being the priest. One of the earliest efforts at increasing the participation of the laity was the printing of Fr. Steadman's My Sunday Missal which, for the first time, contained the English translation of the Mass so the average layperson could follow along! Until this time it was forbidden to print the missal in any language except Latin! This was followed by a whole host of "daily missals" that included the various parts that varied by day. Among the best of these were the St. Joseph and the Maryknoll missals. Now, even the average layperson could follow Mass, whether Sunday or daily.
The next reform was the "responsorial Mass" in which the altar servers no longer responded on behalf of all the people, but everyone was invited to respond with the altar servers. Of course, the response of the altar servers was still on behalf of all the people, since their response was not "official" in that the rubrics never recognized their responses, focusing instead on the interaction between the priest and the altar server(s).
With the death of Pius XII the Church had no clear-cut successor. The balloting in the conclave was an indication of the mixed winds that were blowing throughout the Church. Finally, a "caretaker" pope was elected -- Angelo Roncalli, a well-known and much loved pastor, not known as a diplomat or theologian, and approaching 77 at the time of his election. The electors figured him to be good for a year or two while a more serious attempt to fine more appropriate papabile (papal candidates) took place. When Roncalli took the name of John XXIII there should have been some alarm raised somewhere. This was the name of an anti-pope, Baldassare Cossa, who "ruled" from May 17, 1410 to May 29, 1415 (he died on Nov 22, 1419). One simply did not use a name an anti-pope used!
In any event, the pastor in John XXIII may have been planning on calling the Second Vatican Council as early as the time of his coronation! He, too, knew there were problems in the Church. She was no longer speaking to her sons and daughters in a way that was meaningful. His primary goal was not to rehash theological debates, that was not the issue. Rather, he was concerned with finding ways in which the Church could be revitalized and again become a significant force in the modern world.
Many of his closest advisors were totally opposed to such an undertaking. This opposition took two basic forms: first they did not believe that it would serve any great purpose, and second it would be very costly! They tried to stonewall John, but that was a tactic that was totally impossible with the pope. In his characteristic fashion he simply worked around them, or charmed them into helping. Of course, the Curia was much concerned with this because there was a great assumption that one of the topics would be collegiality -- a move that could curtail the way in which the Curia had become a de facto "bishop" with more authority than any local bishop. They could thwart a bishop by simply refusing to do anything. In fact, this was a technique they had also used to "control" the pope!
When the Roman officials were convinced that John was going to have his way, and there was going to be a council, they worked very hard to fulfill his desires, but with their own goals in mind. Asked to produce the "schemas" or documents to be discussed, they produced a fairly detailed list of items that had long since been settled (after all, there was no chance the bishops would overturn long-standing teachings). Cardinal Ottaviani, the head of the "congregation" now headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger but then called the Holy Office, was in charge of producing the schemas. This process was cloaked in secrecy, and in fact did very little -- Ottaviani was totally opposed to the idea of a council and hoped that by dragging out the process of producing the schema the whole idea would be killed or John's ill health would end the issue forever. Forced, however, to produce the schemas, he worked to produce documents which not only reflected the status quo but actually enforced and made stronger the divisiveness between the Catholic Church and the rest of the world. At one time, Cardinal Ottaviani actually told Archbishop McGrath and his committee that "they would draft whatever he told them to draft" and that the decisions of his office were "nondebatable."
Of course it is well known that when the bishops arrived and found the schemas awaiting them that they balked. Most of the opening days of the council were taken up with bishop after bishop speaking out against the schemas as they had been drafted. Finally, Cardinal Leo Suenens of Belgium rose and "suggested" that the schema needed to be rewritten. He was immediately supported by the cardinal from Milan, Giovanni Battista Montini (later Pope Paul VI). John then ordered the rewriting of all schema. This, coupled with the organized approach taken by the Northern European cardinals, has led the current "traditionalists" (whatever that term actually means) to claim that the council had been "hijacked" by the liberals (another rather nebulous term). As far as the United States is concerned, our bishops ran the gamut from mild revisionism to Cardinal James Francis McIntyre's rock-hard conservatism (in fact, he and Ottaviani were of the same ilk).
As we've already seen, there was pressure from many different directions for reform in the Liturgy. Much of this comes from Europe, although the United States was also working on some, albeit minimal, reforms. This is, in fact, part of the reason that the American conservatives were so surprised at the sweeping nature of the reforms -- they did not see the need since, in reality, things seemed to be working pretty good here. There were, however, other pressures that were going to rip the Church in the United States apart, and the Council was not even a part of that!
The primary document for the liturgical reform was Sacrosanctum concilium, the first document produced by the Council, and one that was hotly debated. In his book The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II (1967, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, IL) Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D. writes that the primary area of focus was the use of the vernacular. He indicates that this was a point that the "liberal bishops" wanted to push because "as long as Latin texts and Latin rites were universally used in the Church, the Roman Curia would be competent to check and control them. But if hundreds and even thousands of local languages and customs were introduced into the liturgy, the Curia would automatically lose this prerogative." Clearly, as time has shown, this was a false belief. Rome still controls the liturgy -- just look at the problems the American Bishops are having in making changes to the Lectionary and the Sacramentary!
The operating principle behind the liturgical reforms was an increased participation of all present at the Liturgy. The bishops were seeking ways in which they could both make the Mass more meaningful and more available. This led to discussion of enculturation -- how much was acceptable and what was not. This enculturation has led to numerous "highlights" that ultra-conservatives have pointed to as indicators that the Church has totally surrendered the Mass to the pagans, especially the much publicized photograph of the pope listening to a reading of Scripture proclaimed by a bare-breasted woman in New Guinea.
Like Trent, the reformers wanted to return to the pristine liturgy of the early Church. Unlike Trent, the experts working on the Liturgy had access to vast numbers of manuscripts and early Sacramentaries that were simply unavailable to the Tridentine experts. Thus, they sought to recreate a simpler Mass that was more akin to the early Mass. This would mean, of course, that many of the "accretions of centuries" would be eliminated. Included in this were the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Vesting Prayers, the Last Gospel and the many-times repeated prayers such as the Confetior. There would also be a shift in emphasis from the Mass as Sacrifice to the Mass as Communal Meal and as Sacrifice. Some contend that the Sacrifice aspect has been totally overlaid by the communal meal aspect, a charge not without some merit. And, like Trent, the actual formulation of the missal was left up to liturgical experts. In this case, the experts were both liturgical and historically trained.
When the periti (experts) were working on the revisions to the missal they had two working principles: keep the Mass as close to the early Mass in terms of simplicity of style, retain the basic theological basis for the Mass. Clearly there were many compromises that were necessary. If we look at the early drafts of the missal (which were not widely disseminated, and in general were made available to the bishops for the purpose of comments) we see that the first draft went too far along the lines of simplicity without retaining some of the essentials (the Eastern Church criticized the lack of an epiclesis in the Roman Canon, for example). Later editions were much closer to what was finally released. There was, of course, a great deal of time pressure experienced here, although the source of that pressure is hard to pinpoint!
From a pure mapping standpoint, the reformers chose to look at the Tridentine Mass as the starting point. Step one involved the removal of repeated prayers. Step two was to eliminate that which, in the opinion of the experts, were "the accretions of centuries." Step three was to remap the Lectionary so that there were more Scriptures read than in the past (a secondary goal of the liturgical reform). This process was completed (for the first draft) in about six months. Bishops had three months to return their comments which, when counted, amounted to some 4,000 suggestions, complaints, and emendations.
Because of some questions of how best to implement some of the changes, various dioceses were tasked with performing some "experiments" to see what the results would be. Other dioceses undertook these experiments without permission, and generally created a sense of confusion among the laity and clergy alike! Over the course of about 18 months these experiments were conducted and the results returned to Rome. The successful experiments included communion in the hand (yes, it was permitted in some places for purposes of experimentation), the use of the vernacular, the priest facing the people, the form of the bread (eventually Rome returned to the standard form, although she did look at using leavened bread as do the Eastern Churches!
The initial editio typica of the missal was released in 1966 although many of the approved changes were already being used virtually across the United States (the Archdiocese of Los Angeles did not implement any of the liturgical changes until Cardinal McIntyre was ordered to do so by Rome in 1969, and even then the changes were slowly implemented, although the speed increased under the late Cardinal Manning, Cardinal McIntyre's successor).
The initial results of the liturgical reforms were generally positive. The reason for the qualification is that most of the changes were implemented willy-nilly with virtually no explanation of the reason for the change, either for the clergy or the laity! However, in general the changes were met with excitement and greater participation. In the early stages this was because there was now some vernacular. The success of this prompted the bishops of virtually every diocese in the world to ask Rome for permission to increase the amount of vernacular used. The next to last set of permissions was for all but the consecration to be in the vernacular, but the consecration must remain in Latin. Finally, even that was changed and the entire Mass was in the vernacular. This, again, let critics to say that the "spirit of Vatican II" overrode the "letter of Vatican II" since the bishops had specifically said that Latin was to remain the primary language of Liturgy. There are two answers to this. First, Latin is and remains the primary language since it is the language of the editio typica of the missals and all local missals are translated from this. Second, the very same bishops who asked that Latin be retained were the ones asking that Latin now be removed as they saw the great response from their people. The first answer is somewhat mitigated, now, since various national episcopal conferences are writing prayers (including Eucharistic prayers) in the vernacular which need not be derived from or translated from Latin.
There are some valid concerns about the liturgical changes that have taken place. These include the "flattening" of the hierarchy and, thereby, removing much of the sacredness of the sacramental priesthood, the diminishing of the understanding of the Real Presence, the shift in emphasis from sacrifice to communal meal has all but obliterated the sacrificial aspects of the Mass, and the confusion over the very meaning of the Mass. Not all of these are directly related to the liturgical reforms, but all find their homes there.
Because of these concerns, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre established the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) which was a "traditionalist" group who wanted to stick with the 1962 missal. That is, they did not want to implement the reforms of Vatican II. Both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II worked with Lefebvre to attempt to work out some sort of agreement, but Lefebvre vacillated on his agreements. He eventually chose to raise four men to the episcopacy without papal mandate thereby incurring a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication. Since he did this in spite of orders from the pope and the appropriate Roman Congregations this was also deemed to be a schismatic act. The SSPX continues today to support the idea that they are part of the Roman Catholic Church but they refuse to acknowledge the validity of Vatican II and argue that Lefebvre was never really excommunicated. Because of dissention in the ranks of the SSPX a group that was still more conservative split off and formed the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV). This group holds to the same principles as the SSPX although they hold that there has not been a valid pope since Pius XII. They base this on the idea that Vatican II could not have been valid and, since John XXIII supported it he could not have been a valid pope. The same argument applies to all popes since then.
In order to attempt to resolve this problem, Pope John Paul II issued Ecclesia Dei which documents the excommunication of Lefebvre, permits the return of the clergy and laity of SSPX and establishes the possibility of celebrating the so-called Tridentine Mass using the 1962 missal by indult or exemption from the law. To provide for the clergy of SSPX the pope established the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) which is authorized to celebrate all the sacraments using the 1962 rubrics and missal. This group operates with the permission of the local bishops in those dioceses where it has a presence.
There are several organizations that are currently pressing for more reforms. Some, like the SSPX, want to go back to the Mass of Pius V and toss out all the reforms of Vatican II. Others, like Adoremus, want to take where we are, reappraise it, and decide how to get closer to what Vatican II wanted (or, at least, their interpretation of Vatican II). Since one of the key principles of the Church is semper reformanda (always reforming) it is quite likely that we will continue to reform the reforms.
We know that in the United States there will be a new Sacramentary and a revised Lectionary. What we don't know is when (the NCCB and Rome are still working on the texts). We know that the Church, whose role it is to present the eternal Truth in terms the world can understand, will continue to seek ways to do that, and will continue to reform the Liturgy.
In the end, we are left with a simple Truth. The theme of every Mass speaks that Truth: the life, death and resurrection of Jesus which make possible our own eternal salvation. In the words of the Gospel for today (the 20th Sunday in Ordinary Time), "He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day...the man who feeds on this bread shall live forever."