Two Hypotheses on the Present Liturgical Crisis

After the Second Vatican Council, the Church experienced radical changes everywhere, but most notably in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Particularly at the parish level, the Mass went from all-Latin to all-English, almost overnight. The priest was turned around, so the people could see what was happening on the altar more easily and so that they could “actively participate”. This also helped to give the Mass a Last Supper sort of feel, so that the sacrificial nature of the liturgy was heavily downplayed. No longer was interior participation seen as good; instead, the view predominated that the people must perform external functions so as to achieve the “full, conscious, and active” participation that Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council’s text on the liturgy, called for. Now the congregation not only MUST say the responses (which had been permitted but not mandated in some quarters before the Council), but they also should read the readings in front of the congregation, sing in the choir, carry the Book of the Gospels to the altar, receive the Blessed Sacrament in their unconsecrated hands, and even help distribute the same Eucharist themselves, because to do any less would be failure to actively participate. Chant as the primary liturgical music was scoffed at. After all, wouldn’t that be a detriment to “full, conscious, and active participation”? Chant was promptly replaced, in most places, by banal, trite English songs whose lyrics mainly dealt with community, and the warm fuzzies of God’s love, and “breaking bread” and “sharing the cup”. Thus, with all of this added together, the Mass was stripped of any transcendence or mystery. The idea of awe in the presence of the Holy Eucharist was snuffed like a match under a shoe, and belief in Transubstantiation has plummeted to devastating lows.

The question which follows is inevitable: How did such radical changes occur? How did the Church go from having a liturgy which was described by Fr. Faber as “the most beautiful thing on this side of Heaven”, and which movies of old loved to showcase, to a liturgy that’s Protestant in style and which, as commonly celebrated, fails to point to what it even is?

A interesting question, certainly, and while there are those who hypothesize about Freemasons having been behind it all (which may be true for all we know, but it’s impossible to say), I’m going to suggest a simpler, twofold explanation:

Firstly, that the Council’s document, Sacrosanctum Concilium itself, is to blame. This may surprise some, and quite understandably. After all, Sacrosanctum Concilium said the Mass would still be mainly Latin, and Gregorian chant would be given pride of place, and there would be “no innovations unless the good of the faithful surely and certainly required them”, and it never said the priest should be turned around! All that is true. How, then, am I supposed to blame the document if it seems “traditional” enough? You’ll see.

Then my second hypothesis would be that the radical changes occurred because notable change was occurring at all.

Hypothesis 1: Sacrosanctum Concilium Itself Is Somewhat Problematic

While it’s true that this document seems traditional enough, it’s quite vague in a number of places and can be read in either a conservative or a progressive light. For example, the text says, with regard to the use of the vernacular, that it could be used “in such places as the readings and directives, and for some of the prayers and chants” (SC 36, 2). This doesn’t seem to imply the whole Mass, certainly, and that would please the traditionalist. Yet after suggesting parts in which to use the vernacular, it says the extent to which the vernacular is applied will be determined by “competent authority” (SC 36, 3), then subsequently approved by the Holy See. The progressive could read that part and go, “Oh, nice, this gives us some lee-way!”

Or what about Gregorian chant? The text says that it should be “given pride of place” since it is “specially suited” to the Roman liturgy. Thus, if a traditionalist were reading the document, he’d be relieved by such statements. But then, if we look closely, the text doesn’t simply say “Gregorian chant should be given pride of place”, it says, “other things being equal, it should be given pride of place” (SC 116), and it says that “other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30″ (116). Yet article 30, which is used as a “check” for the usage of non-chant music, is itself vague and could mean almost anything depending on the disposition of the reader.

Even the statement, “There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them” (SC 23), often thrown around by traditionalists, could easily be discarded by progressives with the argument that these innovations are required! Furthermore, the progressive liturgist could have an absolute field day with the sentence, “in the restoration and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is to be considered before all else” (SC 14). Is it really any wonder that laypeople perform so many priestly functions these days? After all, aren’t they “actively participating” which was the chief goal of the Council’s liturgical reforms?

In all likelihood, most of the Council Fathers weren’t expecting the liturgical reforms we got. Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, voted in favor of Sacrosanctum Concilium and he was apparently in favor of having the Liturgy of the Word/Mass of the Catechumens in the vernacular. I’d be willing to bet that at least a good number of the Council Fathers were expecting the Mass to be mostly the same as it previously was. But the Council’s text affords way too much liberty, and honestly, I’d say that “being loyal to the liturgical reforms as envisioned by Vatican II itself” is much easier said than done.

Hypothesis 2: Radical Change Happened Because Change Was Happening At All

My second idea concerning the radical change of the liturgy is that fact that the Mass was being notably changed at all. Now, we mustn’t think that from the Middles Ages to 1965 the missal had undergone no revisions whatsoever. It certainly had, and you can research them if you want, but none of them were so extensive that they changed the order of the Mass itself. To the untrained eye, the Mass in 1400 AD would look nearly identical to the Mass in 1962. Considering that the Mass had been like that for centuries, possible even a millennium, it’s not hard to believe that the idea cemented that the Mass was untouchable, that it couldn’t be changed.

Fast-forward to the Second Vatican Council. Wouldn’t it make at least some sense that as soon as the idea of genuine liturgical reformation was brought up, the progressives were leaping for joy? You can almost picture their excitement: “Changing the unchangeable? How can it be? We might actually expand horizons? Be given legitimate OPTIONS with regard to liturgical celebration, in contrast to the scrupulous rubrics of the current missal?”

And thus, everything became fair game. All options were explored, experimentation encouraged, and everything which smacked of traditionalism was looked upon sourly. This is the mindset that was hoisted upon most parishes, and if you ask most people, they’d say the pre-Vatican II liturgical style was in need of change and what we have now is drastically superior, since the congregation can “actually do things”, and that it’s more personal since we can sing happy songs, feed ourselves the Eucharist, and look at the priest’s face.

Deliver us, O Lord, from this current tribulation.


13 thoughts on “Two Hypotheses on the Present Liturgical Crisis”

      1. Amazing essay! I think many others should here this message! I went to a “Catholic Scouting” mass, and was it happy clappy. Guitar Solo, Prot. Music, altar towards the people, 99.9% of the scouts received in the hand casually (I was one of 10 people who received on the tongue, I counted) and people clapped during mass… On top of that (If that wasn’t bad enough) an entire Ciborium of hosts was dropped on the ground DX ! This is the mass I was thinking about when I read this, and I wish everyone there was able to read this. I wish they would enforce the altar being back where it was, the choir singing Gregorian chant, with the pipe organ! To quote you, “Deliver us, O Lord, from this current tribulation.” ;)


      2. It really is a shame, how few people receive on the tongue anymore. Someone would be lucky if he saw more than 10 people doing it. I said in one post here recently that when Communion in the hand was permitted, it was permitted in a limited fashion in response to people who had disobediently begun the practice. The document permitting it said that there should be catechesis explaining why it’s permitted, care should be taken, etc… Yet almost overnight, Communion in the hand became the unofficial norm.

        As for watching who receives on the tongue, I usually try not to do that, but one time recently I couldn’t help myself and I noticed that the family of the man who teaches the adult religion classes at my church receives on the tongue. He’s a very traditionally minded man, too, so it’s quite sad that his classes are so sparsely attended. He’s spoken a couple times about the need for ad orientem, and Latin, and the danger of extraordinary ministers giving Communion, and girl altar servers, and whatever else.


  1. Yes, very interesting indeed. I think now I am going to have to take a look at Sacrosanctum Concilium. :) Thanks for the insight!

    I also can relate to this newfangled muddle: my parish is round (extremely distracting), plain, hard, cold, the Eucharist shoved to the back (which confuses visitors who genuflect to the altar), ‘altar servers’ (not altar boys, although I think we are finally starting to change things- they are mostly boys), holding hands during the Our Father, warm fuzzy songs, a ‘youth Mass’ complete with rock band and all, and to top it all off, the visiting priests are usually joke-crackers throughout the Mass. We have Eucharistic ministers (girls too) by the dozens and small confession lines. I think the most traditional ones in the Parish always sit in the pew behind the altar, facing the Eucharistic Chapel, and with the choir conveniently out of the way of distraction. :) Oh deary me… do you suppose the guide on how to say and attend the Mass with more reverence will be still coming out? I certainly hope so. And I hope that the next Pope will be fiery fighter and defender of the Faith, own a pitbull (or just issue lots of Papal Pitbulls), and restore Latin permanently to the liturgy– away with all these clowns, balloons, and jokes! Ok, rant over. :)


    1. I feel your pain. But please, do not, DO NOT call laypeople who give Communion “Eucharistic ministers”. The only Eucharistic minister (the one who affects the change) is the priest.

      Laypeople are extraordinary ministers, not of the Eucharist, but of Holy Communion.

      Rant over. lol


      1. And yes, I believe it will be coming out. Cardinal Llovera seems to want it to come out. I just hope the next Holy Father is not liturgically liberal and therefore won’t want it.


      2. Yes, I know. XP It’s just it is such a hassle to say (or type) “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.” :) Maybe they can delete the term. and the extraordinary-ministers-of-Holy-Communion as well. x) Maybe in the coming guide they will abolish this. *hopeful look*


      3. Yes, but see, if you don’t push on through said hassle, you’re contributing to the widespread use of a title which laypeople can’t have. ;)

        Anyway, I would doubt it. Extraordinary Ministers and Communion in the hand are here to stay for a while, unless Cardinal Arinze becomes the next pope.


      4. I’d be happy with Cardinal Burke as well. :)

        I’d really love to have Cardinal Arinze elected, but while it is POSSIBLE, he might be too old. He’s 80 now, and Pontiff-Emeritus Benedict retired due to age.


  2. Okay, here I am, as promised (quite some time ago — sorry).
    Also: Salve Domina Crucesignata. Nice to see you here. :)

    Okay, Michael, here are my thoughts on your post. :-) Nothing too terrible, I promise.
    Regarding your first hypothesis, I would say that perhaps the document is problematic, but we cannot blame it, per se, for this mess. We can only blame the interpretations of it. However, that can be quite a fulfilling experience… The problem with a lot of documents is, of course, the ambiguity, but I would suspect the liberals of deliberately introducing those into them. Thank you for pointing all those out in this specific case.
    I would also quite agree with your second hypothesis, that change suddenly equaled radical change. As we all know, “change and change for the better are two different things”. But most liberals do not. At least they don’t think of changes that way (and they hate to consider consequences).

    P.S. I’m praying for Cardinal Burke. ;-)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s