www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology BCW online

In the sixteenth century,
there was a tremendous religious
battle in the Western
Church. Those calling for
reform separated from the
Catholic Church, claiming that
it had become corrupt and had
wandered from the teachings
of Christ as found in the holy
scriptures. In order to justify
this separation, an appeal was
made to the primacy of the
written word, of the record
of Christ’s teaching, above
the teaching authority of
the Church. The separation
has lasted ever since. The
Catholic Church countered by
saying that through apostolic
succession, the Church maintains
its connection with Christ,
and can always interpret
his words as applied to the
contemporary situation. In
this we see that the dispute
was a matter of reform, that
is, of shaping the Church over
again in conformity to Christ’s
original mission.
Shortly after the Church
began to divide over these
issues, the Roman Catholic
Church began its own “counterreformation.”
Appalled at
the divisions that were taking
place, the Catholic Church
sought to redefine itself,
and to eliminate corruption
where it had actually crept
in. The main instrument for
accomplishing this was the
Council of Trent, which took
place in the second half of the
sixteenth century. This council
- in a manner of speaking -
cleaned up the Church and
gave it an identity that was to
last for centuries. In regard to
liturgy, to our worship of God,
it established standards for all
churches to attain, and, very
importantly, brought about
a certain uniformity. This
uniformity was not absolute,
since the Ambrosian rite of
Milan continued, and religious
orders had some minor
differences. The main tool to
maintain uniformity was the
rejection of the Liturgy in the
vernacular, and the imposition
of the Latin language, as a
sacred language, in all Western
Churches. Eastern Churches,
such as the Maronite Church,
already in union with Rome,
and later the Byzantine Slav
and Melkite Churches, were
allowed to keep their own rites
and languages, though very
significant “latinizations” were
to occur in time.
In the twentieth century
many Catholics began to think
that their rigid adherence to the
Liturgy of the Council of Trent
was hindering the mission and
growth of the Church. Some
reforms began to be made.
Pope St. Pius X reformed the
breviary, and Pope Pius XII
reformed the services of Holy
Week. In the early 1960’s, Pope
Bl. John XXIII announced an
ecumenical council to deal with
the problems of the Church
in the modern world. Called
the Second Vatican Council, it
took place in Rome from 1962
to 1965. On December 4,
1963, by general consensus, the
bishops approved a reform of
the Liturgy in The Constitution
on the Sacred Liturgy. The
key statement of this decree
was in paragraph 14, “Mother
Church earnestly desires
that all the faithful should
be led to that full, conscious
and active participation in
liturgical celebrations which is
demanded by the very nature
of the liturgy, and to which
the Christian people, ‘a chosen
race, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a redeemed people’ (1
Peter 2:9, 4-5) have a right and
obligation by reason of their
baptisms.” On the practical
level, the Constitution added,
“the liturgical books are to
be revised as soon as possible.
(§25)” The Constitution said
that in this reform, “the rites
should be distinguished by a
noble simplicity. They should
be short, clear and free from
useless repetitions. They
should be within the people’s
powers of comprehension, and
normally should not require
much explanation. (§34)”
Extremely important was the
approval of the vernacular
language, though in the
beginning this was done with
extreme caution (§36).
After the close of the
Council, Rome acted quickly
to reform the Mass first, and
then the other sacraments and
rites of the Church. For the
faithful, the Divine Liturgy
was the most important, and
many places, the exclusive
service. Before very long, the
liturgy was entirely different.
It was celebrated aloud, so that
the faithful could hear all the
prayers, and various responses
were expected. Despite the
initial caution, soon all worship
texts were in the vernacular
and very little Latin remained.
The priest began to celebrate
from the other side of the altar,
facing the people. Though
the motive for this was to
emphasize that the Mass was
a meal, an occasion for table
fellowship, the human presence
of the priest became more
important. The Liturgy had a
different face. These reforms
have now become entrenched
in the Church, though some
people reacted against them
at the beginning, and have
remained opposed since.
In reality, however, there were
two reforms. The first was the
official reform authorized by
the central authority of the
Church, which adhered more
closely to the intentions of the
Council. The replacement of
the rigid Tridentine Liturgy,
on the other hand, opened up
a floodgate of experimentation
on the popular level. Many
of these ad hoc experiments
were not well grounded in
liturgical theology. Though
the pace has slowed, the
nature of the Roman Liturgy
has changed, and any reaction
against it has been more to the
unofficial modifications than
to the official reform. I have
no doubt that the pre-Vatican
Liturgy demanded reform, for
it no longer communicated
the gospel to the people, and
buried meaning under a rigid
regimen of silence. The Church
will never go back to that era,
though it may “reform the
reform.” Though there are
those who are dissatisfied and
even disgruntled with what
has happened, and, indeed,
not everything has been
done correctly, in general the
Vatican II reform has brought
a new degree of participation
and understanding of what
our worship is about. In my
last article, I spoke about the
Protestant Reformation, and in
this article about the Vatican II
reform, but now we must turn
to our own Eastern Church and
ask the question: what does
reform mean for us?