This is a powerful article. Thank you for writing this as I needed it…"We—each one of us—must continue to work on our salvation in fear and trembling. And, a major part of it is proclaiming the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Are you doing it? Am I doing it?" Amen!
The reason why the fruits of the Second Vatican Council have not always been good is, I believe, largely due to the ambiguous language that many of the documents used. The passages that you quoted are appropriately assertive in their bold declaration of these tenets of the Faith. Unfortunately, however, there are many other passages throughout the Council documents that leave room for interpretation, which has led to many of the less positive fruits of the Council that we experience today. The false "spirit of Vatican II" took these ambiguous passages and ran with them, using the ambiguity as their license to introduce many things that were contrary to the living tradition of the Church.
Can your provide some examples of passages that are problematic in your opinion?
I think in some cases the council documents were more ignored than anything else. For example, in Sacrosanctum Concilium, says Gregorian Chant should have pride of place--but I’ve never encountered it in any form of the ordinary form of the Roman Rite since I’ve been around.
I know others have issues with Nostra Aetate--but my argument is the document is merely giving descriptives how said religions describe themselves not making assertions about whether these claims are true.
One that immediately comes to mind, since I've taken several sacred music courses in college, is a passage about the use of different instruments in the liturgy. From Sacrosanctum Concilium § 120:
"In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.
But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful."
The latter paragraph is the reason why we have Masses with "modern music," aka drums, guitars, tambourines, and all sorts of secular instruments. By leaving it up to individual interpretation as to what constitutes a "suitable" instrument for the Mass, Vatican II left us with no definitive standard by which to judge suitability in sacred music. My sacred music professor always reminds us of Pope Pius X's words in his motu proprio Tra Le Sollecitudini: "The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like." Such clearly defined standards for sacred music are not to be found in the Council documents, which say that one thing should exist and then immediately make provisions for exceptions.
Another ambiguous passage is § 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, with deals with the use of Latin in the liturgy:
"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."
It says that the use of Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites, but immediately after that, it says that "the limits of [Latin's] employment may be extended." The Council did not give clear-cut guidelines as to how far these limits may be extended, and that's how we ended up with a Mass that's completely in the vernacular. The original Mass of Vatican II contained minimal use of the vernacular (I think it's mainly the readings that are read in the vernacular, but it's possible that there are more parts that I'm forgetting), but since the Council didn't prescribe limits on the use of the vernacular, it is entirely up to the discretion of the individual priests and bishops as to how much Latin will be used in any given Mass.
Because of all the ambiguity in the Council documents, we've lost a great deal of uniformity in the Mass and the Sacraments that reminds us of the universal character of the Church. Nowadays, if you want a more "traditional" Novus Ordo Mass, you need to find a priest who arbitrarily chooses to include more traditional elements when he offers the Mass. Rarely do two priests offer the Mass the exact same way in terms of accidental elements, and while this of course does not invalidate the Mass, it does trace its cause back to the ambiguity of the Council documents, I believe.
Off the top of my head, I don't know of Nostra Aetate by name. I mainly just know the Vatican II documents that pertain to sacred music and the liturgy, thanks to my having taken courses on these topics in college.
Playing the contrarian for discussion, I’m no magisterial or sacred music expert, but doesn’t a constitution of an ecumenical council promulgated by a Pope supersede a motu proprio? Is it possible that St. Pius X, by his own initiative, is persuaded by a ethno-mcentrism? For example, the drum in African communities is it incapable of holding a sacred place in their culture?
Regarding, Latin, it’s harder to argue the point. I’ve rarely seen Latin in an ordinary form of the Roman Rite. But again--I’d argue the document is fairly clear & it’s been ignored regarding that particular issue.
That's a fair point about an ecumenical council's superseding a motu proprio. However, I am reminded of Paul VI's words at an audience on January 12, 1966: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility." Vatican II was, in the words of a pope directly involved in the Council, pastoral rather than dogmatic, so I'm always cautious about elevating it to the level of the infallible dogmatic Councils throughout Church history.
As for Pope Pius X's being ethnocentric, I would point out that he spoke against the use of those instruments specifically in the Roman Rite due to the their being widely associated with profane/secular music. The organ is universally regarded as a sacred instrument within the Western Church; however, many Eastern Rites have their own sacred instruments and rarely use the organ. Pope Pius X was writing to the Western Church for whom drums, pianos, etc. are part of our secular music culture.
I recall reading something by Pope Benedict XVI, I believe in his Spirit of the Liturgy, about how different cultures have different traditions that are sacred to them. I'll need to pull out my copy of the book and see if I can find the quote. If I'm remembering correctly, he basically said that if a drum is an integral part of a culture's worship, then it is appropriate for the liturgy. If, however, a given culture traditionally uses drums for secular ("profane") music first, then drums are not appropriate for the liturgy in that culture. In western culture, we associate drums with folk, pop, and rock music. We have a secular connotation with this and other instruments, which is why they are not appropriate for use in our liturgies.
You write, “spoke against the use of those instruments specifically in the Roman Rite due to the their being widely associated with profane/secular music.”
So, his thoughts wouldn’t apply to African music then?
And while Pope Paul VI did comment the pastoral purpose of the council wouldn’t it be pastoral to amend or look again regarding African percussions which hold a sacred character in their culture? I think this is what Pope BXVI is keying in on with what you said regarding his opinion on the topic.
I think perspective helps too. I attend a parish that is largely immigrants. And there is a large African community there. They do use drums in their liturgies & they are very devout. It’s hard for me to cast judgment seeing it in action.
My understanding is that his motu proprio was primarily directed at other countries (I.e., the Americas and Europe). I could be incorrect, though.
African percussions can certainly be used very devoutly in their liturgies. Several years ago, I was blessed to attend a World Mission Sunday Mass that had attendees from all over the world. The music, courtesy of a Nigerian choir, was so beautiful; to this day, it was the most beautiful version of Handel's Hallelujah Chorus that I have ever heard. I definitely agree with you that cultural influences are important to the music at Mass (while still preserving Gregorian Chant's "pride of place" in the Roman Liturgy), and I believe that Pope Pius X would also have agreed. I think he was mainly trying to curb situations in which we make pop music the norm for the liturgy.
This is a powerful article. Thank you for writing this as I needed it…"We—each one of us—must continue to work on our salvation in fear and trembling. And, a major part of it is proclaiming the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Are you doing it? Am I doing it?" Amen!
The reason why the fruits of the Second Vatican Council have not always been good is, I believe, largely due to the ambiguous language that many of the documents used. The passages that you quoted are appropriately assertive in their bold declaration of these tenets of the Faith. Unfortunately, however, there are many other passages throughout the Council documents that leave room for interpretation, which has led to many of the less positive fruits of the Council that we experience today. The false "spirit of Vatican II" took these ambiguous passages and ran with them, using the ambiguity as their license to introduce many things that were contrary to the living tradition of the Church.
Can your provide some examples of passages that are problematic in your opinion?
I think in some cases the council documents were more ignored than anything else. For example, in Sacrosanctum Concilium, says Gregorian Chant should have pride of place--but I’ve never encountered it in any form of the ordinary form of the Roman Rite since I’ve been around.
I know others have issues with Nostra Aetate--but my argument is the document is merely giving descriptives how said religions describe themselves not making assertions about whether these claims are true.
One that immediately comes to mind, since I've taken several sacred music courses in college, is a passage about the use of different instruments in the liturgy. From Sacrosanctum Concilium § 120:
"In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.
But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful."
The latter paragraph is the reason why we have Masses with "modern music," aka drums, guitars, tambourines, and all sorts of secular instruments. By leaving it up to individual interpretation as to what constitutes a "suitable" instrument for the Mass, Vatican II left us with no definitive standard by which to judge suitability in sacred music. My sacred music professor always reminds us of Pope Pius X's words in his motu proprio Tra Le Sollecitudini: "The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like." Such clearly defined standards for sacred music are not to be found in the Council documents, which say that one thing should exist and then immediately make provisions for exceptions.
Another ambiguous passage is § 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, with deals with the use of Latin in the liturgy:
"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."
It says that the use of Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites, but immediately after that, it says that "the limits of [Latin's] employment may be extended." The Council did not give clear-cut guidelines as to how far these limits may be extended, and that's how we ended up with a Mass that's completely in the vernacular. The original Mass of Vatican II contained minimal use of the vernacular (I think it's mainly the readings that are read in the vernacular, but it's possible that there are more parts that I'm forgetting), but since the Council didn't prescribe limits on the use of the vernacular, it is entirely up to the discretion of the individual priests and bishops as to how much Latin will be used in any given Mass.
Because of all the ambiguity in the Council documents, we've lost a great deal of uniformity in the Mass and the Sacraments that reminds us of the universal character of the Church. Nowadays, if you want a more "traditional" Novus Ordo Mass, you need to find a priest who arbitrarily chooses to include more traditional elements when he offers the Mass. Rarely do two priests offer the Mass the exact same way in terms of accidental elements, and while this of course does not invalidate the Mass, it does trace its cause back to the ambiguity of the Council documents, I believe.
Off the top of my head, I don't know of Nostra Aetate by name. I mainly just know the Vatican II documents that pertain to sacred music and the liturgy, thanks to my having taken courses on these topics in college.
Playing the contrarian for discussion, I’m no magisterial or sacred music expert, but doesn’t a constitution of an ecumenical council promulgated by a Pope supersede a motu proprio? Is it possible that St. Pius X, by his own initiative, is persuaded by a ethno-mcentrism? For example, the drum in African communities is it incapable of holding a sacred place in their culture?
Regarding, Latin, it’s harder to argue the point. I’ve rarely seen Latin in an ordinary form of the Roman Rite. But again--I’d argue the document is fairly clear & it’s been ignored regarding that particular issue.
That's a fair point about an ecumenical council's superseding a motu proprio. However, I am reminded of Paul VI's words at an audience on January 12, 1966: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility." Vatican II was, in the words of a pope directly involved in the Council, pastoral rather than dogmatic, so I'm always cautious about elevating it to the level of the infallible dogmatic Councils throughout Church history.
As for Pope Pius X's being ethnocentric, I would point out that he spoke against the use of those instruments specifically in the Roman Rite due to the their being widely associated with profane/secular music. The organ is universally regarded as a sacred instrument within the Western Church; however, many Eastern Rites have their own sacred instruments and rarely use the organ. Pope Pius X was writing to the Western Church for whom drums, pianos, etc. are part of our secular music culture.
I recall reading something by Pope Benedict XVI, I believe in his Spirit of the Liturgy, about how different cultures have different traditions that are sacred to them. I'll need to pull out my copy of the book and see if I can find the quote. If I'm remembering correctly, he basically said that if a drum is an integral part of a culture's worship, then it is appropriate for the liturgy. If, however, a given culture traditionally uses drums for secular ("profane") music first, then drums are not appropriate for the liturgy in that culture. In western culture, we associate drums with folk, pop, and rock music. We have a secular connotation with this and other instruments, which is why they are not appropriate for use in our liturgies.
You write, “spoke against the use of those instruments specifically in the Roman Rite due to the their being widely associated with profane/secular music.”
So, his thoughts wouldn’t apply to African music then?
And while Pope Paul VI did comment the pastoral purpose of the council wouldn’t it be pastoral to amend or look again regarding African percussions which hold a sacred character in their culture? I think this is what Pope BXVI is keying in on with what you said regarding his opinion on the topic.
I think perspective helps too. I attend a parish that is largely immigrants. And there is a large African community there. They do use drums in their liturgies & they are very devout. It’s hard for me to cast judgment seeing it in action.
My understanding is that his motu proprio was primarily directed at other countries (I.e., the Americas and Europe). I could be incorrect, though.
African percussions can certainly be used very devoutly in their liturgies. Several years ago, I was blessed to attend a World Mission Sunday Mass that had attendees from all over the world. The music, courtesy of a Nigerian choir, was so beautiful; to this day, it was the most beautiful version of Handel's Hallelujah Chorus that I have ever heard. I definitely agree with you that cultural influences are important to the music at Mass (while still preserving Gregorian Chant's "pride of place" in the Roman Liturgy), and I believe that Pope Pius X would also have agreed. I think he was mainly trying to curb situations in which we make pop music the norm for the liturgy.