The Liturgical Reforms of Pope St. Pius X, and the Council

One of the purposes of the renewal of the sacred liturgy as understood by the Second Vatican Council was to restore a sense of sacred simplicity to the liturgy which included the active and conscious prayer of the faithful united to the divine sacrifice and holy meal.

Some fifty years before the Council, Pope St. Pius X had urged: "Do not pray at the Mass, but pray the Mass." (The Unread Vision: The Liturgical Movement in the United States of America 1926-1955, Keith F. Pecklers. The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota P.46).

The fact is that for too long a time many increasingly educated lay Catholics were still "saying their prayers" at Mass rather than actively "praying the Mass," as Pope Pius X desired.

It was Pope St. Pius X who, to no small extent, launched what became known as the liturgical movement in the 20th century. He lowered the age when children could receive First Communion, and, perhaps most importantly, emphasized that Communion was a part of the Mass itself, causing something of a sensation because many Catholics did not go to communion regularly; he did so by urging frequent, indeed daily, communion, even for children, (Denzinger, 2142) contrary to centuries of custom (small 't' tradition) which had diverged from the Tradition of the Church in this regard. The reform emphasized the need to receive Communion within the Mass itself:

"It was normative prior to the liturgical reform for the assembly to be communicated by the priest before the beginning of Mass. In this way the priest would not need to 'interrupt' the Mass for Communion" ( Pecklers, ibid P.52). We take all this for granted today but it seemed quite revolutionary at the time since it was hearkening back through great distances of time to a period of purer tradition. Indeed, despite what some Integrists think (who subscribe to an erroneous sola traditio, dispensing with the living Magisterium), it was Pius X who first launched a campaign for more intelligent and conscious "active participation" on the part of the laity in the last century by calling for a "revival in all possible ways of the true Christian spirit".

"Since we have very much at heart that the true Christian spirit be revived in all possible ways and that it be maintained among the faithful, it is above all necessary to provide for the holiness and dignity of the sacred places where precisely the faithful gather to draw this spirit at its primary and indispensible source, that is, in active participation in the sacred mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church" (Acta Sancta Sedis (ASS 36:28 (1904) ibid p.12, emphasis ours) Such words and actions, encouraging principled liturgical reforms ("revive" "restoration of all things in Christ" and "active participation" ) coming from this great anti-modernist Saint-Pope, served as the catalyst for the ongoing liturgical movement, though not, certainly, for any abuses. In an age of increasing literacy, merely saying ones own prayers in an insulated way at Mass was no longer tolerable. Thus was born a desire to "revive" or "restore" many traditions which had been lost in the course of the centuries. Priests who rushed and mumbled their 15-20 minute Latin Masses---not a rare thing by all accounts---didn't help matters either, and made liturgical reforms all the more urgent and necessary.

Various liturgical reforms continued and climaxed before the second Vatican Council with Pope Pius XII's restoration of the Easter Triduum, culminating in the great vigil on Easter night. Experiments with the vernacular---which was greatly desired by many Catholics throughout the world---were approved in 1954 (ibid. P. 65) and even the ancient practice of the faithful bringing their own altar bread to the altar was restored or revived in various places with approval. The kiss of peace was also an ancient practice which was revived here and there. Altar boys substituting for the responses intended for the faithful were not part of the most ancient Tradition. These restorations were to become the norm after Vatican II.

The Church's reforms in liturgy are always careful to maintain the substance of the Eucharistic Tradition, even if its attendant historical accretions can, and do, change. The Council of Trent said:

"The Holy Council declares moreover: The Church has always had, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being saved, the power to decide or to modify what she judges better to suit the spiritual utility of those who receive them or with respect to the sacraments themselves, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places."--- The Council of Trent, Dz 1728; also Dz Herder ed, 1955, #931, p. 256 So it is important today to distinguish legitimate liturgical reforms, promoted by the Magisterium in response to the desires of many, from the abuses of those reforms which either went off the rails altogether, or which went too far in certain directions. The answer to this problem, as French theologian Denis Crouan indicates in his book The Liturgy Betrayed (Ignatius Press, 2000, San Francisco) is to return more faithfully to the norms of the Roman Missal and to forsake personal and eccentric "free-form liturgies" which threatened to collapse the true ends of the liturgical movement into a chaos of movements, where the alleged "creativity" of the priest becomes a substitute for the Christocentric nature of the liturgy and the norms laid down by the Church, often reducing the mass to a collection of performances centered on the community rather than in the prayer and Sacrifice of the Church. Much progress has already been made (2005) without falling into that opposite error of sterile formalism.

One such abuse which can still be seen here and there today is the neo-iconoclasm which destroyed so much sacred art and genuine piety since the 1970's with no justification whatsoever from the actual texts of Second Vatican Council. The Council, in keeping with its desire for a restored simplicity in sacred worship, certainly wanted to do away with some of the accumulated and unnecessary clutter which often distracted from the Eucharistic celebration / Sacrifice of the Mass, but it in no wise sanctioned a veritable iconoclasm which turned its back on the tradition and theology of the Church in this regard, morphing churches into cold and artificially barren, chummy, "worship spaces". Our Lord said that His Father's house is above all a "House of prayer". The Council never intended to detract from this essential contemplative definition of the universal and local church.

The Second Vatican Council was explicit in seeking to maintain continuity with tradition even as it weeded out any cluttering in our sanctuaries and other truly unnecessary accretions.

The Council's document on liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December, 1963 is very clear:

The Church has been particularly careful to see that sacred furnishings should worthily and beautifully serve the dignity of worship. She has admitted changes in material, style, or ornamentation prompted by the progress of technical arts with the passage of time.

123 The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her own. She has admitted styles from every period, in keeping with the natural characteristics and conditions of peoples and the needs of the various rites. Thus in the course of the centuries she has brought into existence a treasury of art which must be preserved with every care.

124. Ordinaries are to take care that in encouraging and favouring truly sacred art, they should seek for noble beauty rather than sumptuous display. The same principle applies also to sacred vestments and ornaments.

Bishops should be careful to ensure that works of art which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or through lack of artistic merit or because of mediocrity or pretence, be removed from the house of God and from other sacred places.

Thus what was to be strived for in all churches was "noble beauty" and what was to be preserved was that "treasury of art" which was brought into existence through the centuries "with every care". But clutter was to give way to noble simplicity, as was the sacred tradition regarding veneration of sacred images, the common patrimony of all churches of the apostolic tradition in both the East and west:

125. "The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. It is also desirable that schools or academies of sacred art should be established in those parts of the world where they would be useful for the training of artists.

129. During their philosophical and theological studies, clerics are to be taught about the history and development of sacred art, and about the basic principles which govern the production of its works. Thus they will be able to appreciate and preserve the Church's ancient monuments, and be able to aid by good advice artists who are engaged in producing works of art."

A local church where this veneration of images (especially, but not only, the Stations of the Cross) does not normally exist is a cold place, broken off from an important---indeed critical---- aspect of the Church's common tradition. Why? Because such veneration is "of the faith" and is almost as old as the Church herself as witness the sacred art of the catacombs. It has ever been a normal, vital, part of Catholic teaching, devotion and praxis, and in no wise competes with, but, rather, complements and springs from the Eucharist which is the ground and summit of Catholic prayer. The Fathers are unanimous in this teaching.

The heresy of Inconclasm comes in various guises throughout the history of the Church. Under Islamic influence in the Seveth and eighth centuries, many Iconoclasts found themselves regressing to a pre-Incarnational, Old Testament notion of God's Otherness, just as today new reductionist Christologies make icons (which rely on an orthodox Christology) appear anachronistic, quaint. Many neo-modernists do not accept that the Word truly became flesh (Jn 1:14) but prefer to "re-imagine" Jesus as merely an inspiring guru who began his own unique "spiritual tradition" based on mythological eschatological notions of the reign of God and end of the age. Such neo-modernist's, obviously, will not see much point in venerating icons and other forms of sacred art. They distort the Gospels through unbelief.

St. John Damascene was last of the Greek Fathers. He was Born at Damascus about 676 and died some time between 754 and 787.

"He was called a "cursed favourer of Saracens", a "traitorous worshipper of images", a "wronger of Jesus Christ", a "teacher of impiety", and a "bad interpreter of the Scriptures". At the emperor's command his name was written "Manzer" (Manzeros, a bastard)." (Cath Encyc, 1913)

But St. John knew that nothing less than the full understanding of the Incarnation in the context of God's progressive revelation of Himself in time and space---and all its implications----was at stake here. He wrote:

"I see rents in the seamless robe of Christ, which impious men have sought to part asunder, and His body cut into pieces, that is, the word of God and the ancient tradition of the Church. Therefore I have judged it unreasonable to keep silence and to hold my tongue, bearing in mind the Scripture warning:--"If thou withdrawest thyself, my soul shall not delight in thee," (Heb. 10.38) and "If thou seest the sword coming and dost not warn thy brother, I shall require his blood at thy hand." (cf. Ez. 33.8) Fear, then, compelled me to speak; the truth was stronger than the majesty of kings...It is disastrous to suppose that the Church does not know God as He is, that she degenerates into idolatry, for if she declines from perfection in a single iota, it is as an enduring mark on a comely face, destroying by its unsightliness the beauty of the whole. A small thing is not small when it leads to something great, nor indeed is it a thing of no matter to give up the ancient tradition of the Church held by our forefathers, whose conduct we should observe, and whose faith we should imitate... They must not dwell on my unworthiness, nor seek for eloquence, for I am only too conscious of my shortcomings. They must consider the thoughts themselves. The kingdom of heaven is not in word but in deed. Conquest is not my object. I [4] raise a hand which is fighting for the truth--a willing hand under the divine guidance. Relying, then, upon substantial truth as my auxiliary, I will enter on my subject matter. " Thus it is the faith itself, tradition, and the Communion of Saints, St. John Damascene knew, which was being denied, just as it was by trendy Iconoclasts in the Church immediately after the Council and lingering in places today. As in St. John's day, a faulty Christology---or doctrine of Christ, the God-Man, will invariably lead to a rejection of, or even a repugnance for sacred images. If one does not really believe Jesus is true God and true Man, one will not understand the implications of God's entering space and time, becoming a part of man's real history, and thus, having a true form, capable of being depicted in art. For transcendence now is only half the story. The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of history are one! Reductionist Christologies today which prefer to see Jesus as merely a human guru who initiated a new "spiritual tradition" 2,000 years ago based on an antiquated eschatological notion of the reign of God will not take icons or the contemplative dimension of each church seriously, and as worthy of veneration. To deny revelation and reason is to collapse faith into arbitrary subjectivity. Each man, then, for himself. We have seen enough of that.

St. John grounded images in the reality of the Incarnation, wherin God became man in time and space (Jn 1:1):

"I do not adore creation more than the Creator, but I adore the creature created as I am, adopting creation freely and spontaneously that He might elevate our nature and make us partakers of His divine nature. Together with my Lord and King I worship Him clothed in the flesh, not as if it were a garment or He constituted a fourth person of the Trinity--God forbid. That flesh is divine, and endures after its assumption. Human nature was not lost in the Godhead, but just as the Word made flesh remained the Word, so flesh became the Word remaining flesh, becoming, rather, one with the Word through union (kaq upostasin). Therefore I venture to draw an image of the invisible God, not as invisible, but as having become visible for our sakes through flesh and blood. I do not draw an image of the immortal Godhead. I paint the visible flesh of God, for it is impossible to represent [6] a spirit (yuch), how much more God who gives breath to the spirit?... It is clear that when you contemplate God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, you will be able to clothe Him with the human form. When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His [9] form. When He who is a pure spirit, without form or limit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of His own nature, existing as God, takes upon Himself the form of a servant in substance and in stature, and a body of flesh, then you may draw His likeness, and show it to anyone willing to contemplate it. Depict His ineffable condescension, His virginal birth, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Thabor, His all-powerful sufferings, His death and miracles, the proofs of His Godhead, the deeds which He worked in the flesh through divine power, His saving Cross, His Sepulchre, and resurrection, and ascent into heaven. Give to it all the endurance of engraving and colour. Have no fear or anxiety; worship is not all of the same kind. Abraham worshipped the sons of Emmor, impious men in ignorance of God, when he bought the double cave for a tomb. (Gen. 23.7; Acts 7.16) Jacob worshipped his brother Esau and Pharao, the Egyptian, but on the point of his staff.* (Gen 33.3) He worshipped, he did not adore. Josue and Daniel worshipped an angel of God; (Jos. 5.14) they did not adore him. The worship of latreia is one thing, and the worship which is given to merit [10] another. ..."

Of course the Church vindicated St. John Damascene, and consigned the Inconoclasts to the dust-bins of history, just as those neo-modernists who made themselves the center of the church's worship, are being defeated today. For the Catholic Church is rooted in a very long Tradition, preserved by Christ through His living Magisterium which alone has the competence to interpret and mediate it; it boasts a great and stupendous patrimony in the Communion of the Saints which will endure to the end of time.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, referring to the Communion of the Saints, says:

955 "So it is that the union of the wayfarers with the brethren who sleep in the peace of Christ is in no way interrupted, but on the contrary, according to the constant faith of the Church, this union is reinforced by an exchange of spiritual goods." 956 The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness.... They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus.... So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped."493

Do not weep, for I shall be more useful to you after my death and I shall help you then more effectively than during my life.494 I want to spend my heaven in doing good on earth.495

957 "It is not merely by the title of example that we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life of the People of God itself"496:

We worship Christ as God's Son; we love the martyrs as the Lord's disciples and imitators, and rightly so because of their matchless devotion towards their king and master. May we also be their companions and fellow disciples!497

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."498 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.

959 In the one family of God. "For if we continue to love one another and to join in praising the Most Holy Trinity - all of us who are sons of God and form one family in Christ - we will be faithful to the deepest vocation of the Church."499

960 The Church is a "communion of saints": this expression refers first to the "holy things" (sancta), above all the Eucharist, by which "the unity of believers, who form one body in Christ, is both represented and brought about" (LG 3).

961 The term "communion of saints" refers also to the communion of "holy persons" (sancti) in Christ who "died for all," so that what each one does or suffers in and for Christ bears fruit for all.

962 "We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion, the merciful love of God and his saints is always [attentive] to our prayers" (Paul VI, CPG # 30).

Catholics are by instinct traditional, but this means conserving and progressing at once. That is bad news for the neo-modernists and integrists. Our churches are warming again with true contemplation, active participation, and issuing into true praxis rooted in genuine orthodoxy, as we continue implementing the actual teachings of the popes, the Catechism, and the Council.

A great way to "to restore a sense of sacred simplicity to the liturgy," as Stephen Hand puts it, is to return to the Tridentine Mass, Missal of 1962. It is the Mass of Ages, that brought millions upon millions to Christ and the Catholic Church, caused the sacrifices and Faith of countless martyrs, and practiced over centuries.

sense of sacred simplicity

The words are Hand's, I suppose implying his personal idea of what Sacrosanctum Concilium meant by

'The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, and free from useless repetitions. They should be within the peoples' powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.'

His statement isn't authoritative, particularly since it's a misstatement of the Council's words and I would appreciate someone directing me to what was meant by the council's words.

My impression is that it has primarily meant jettisoning things which were added to the Mass and, speaking honestly, dumbing down. The latter ('normally should not require much explanation') means not a deeper understanding, rather a more superficial exposure.

I have to be cautious with such thinking, because as has been pointed out by folks who understand me, I have an inclination to snobbishness.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.