GROWTH OR REVOLUTION?
Monsignor Richard J. Schuler
Contrary to what many may think and many may have hoped, the liturgical
reforms of the Second Vatican Council were not a revolution. Indeed, far
from being a sudden explosion of new ideas, the decrees of the council were
rather the keystone that crowned the developments of the previous sixty
years, beginning with the "motu proprio" of Pope St. Pius X, "Tra le
sollecitudini" of 1903. The events that preceded the "motu proprio"
stretched back into the nineteenth century being rooted in the romantic
movement, the revival of monasticism, the rediscovery of Gregorian chant
and the Caecilian reform of church music.
It is true that the council emphasized two actions which were to be
fostered and promoted: the use of the vernacular languages and the active
participation of the people in the liturgy. But neither of these practices
was suddenly introduced by the council. The vernacular was permitted to a
larger degree, and the active role of the laity was expanded, but both had
been frequently promoted and even urged by official papal documents long
before the meeting of the Second Vatican Council.
The Church does not move in revolutionary leaps. Since it is a living
organism it grows, and the wisdom of the Church directs its development
with a sound plan and great foresight. The goal is clear and the means are
prudently supplied. So too in the regulation of its liturgical life, which
is the life of Christ Himself, who is the Head of His Body, as He continues
to live in this world until the end of time. The regulation of the liturgy
is under the close and direct control of the Church.
The twentieth century has seen a great interest on the part of the
sovereign pontiffs in the liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council gave
greater attention to the liturgy and sacred music than any other ecumenical
council in the entire history of the Church. It was Pius X who set in
motion the entire liturgical development of this century when he turned his
attention to the reform of sacred music in 1903 with the restoration of
chant and sacred polyphony, calling for music to do its part in promoting
the sacredness of divine worship. His successors, Pope Pius XI and Pope
Pius XII, vigorously fostered the activity begun by Pius X.
Not least among the works left us by Pius XII is his great Christmas
encyclical of 1955, a kind of present to the musicians of the world on a
feast that has always been so greatly associated with and adorned by sacred
music. "Musicae sacrae disciplina" was a surprise when it was published,
but what it taught was not. Like all encyclical letters, the method of
writing is based on establishing the foundation in history upon which the
points of the contemporary letter are built. The writer is at pains to show
that what he is teaching rests securely on the writings of his
predecessors. Pius XII mentions the sacred scriptures, the fathers and
doctors of the Church, the writings of his predecessors, and then builds on
what has been consistently written and preached from the beginning of the
Church. The ideas of the constitution on the sacred liturgy of the II
Vatican Council, especially those in the sixth chapter on sacred music,
rest soundly on the encyclical of Pius XII.
The men who prepared "Musicae sacrae disciplina," not least among them
Monsignor Iginio Angles, rector of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music
in Rome, were the same men who prepared the documents on music for the
council. They knew well the direction that the Church was moving in its
liturgical revival, and in writing the sections on music in the
constitution on the sacred liturgy, they put forth the ordered and logical
developments that would crown the work of Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII.
For a clear understanding of the decrees of the council it is necessary to
read the minutes of the various meetings of the music committee as well as
the discussions of the fathers of the council, both in the smaller
assemblies and in the plenary sessions in Saint Peter's. Beyond the few
paragraphs we have that make up the sixth chapter of the constitution lies
a wealth of discussion and debate, explanation and clarification, that the
fathers and the members of the committees have left as part of the
documents of the council. All of it is preserved, and the scholars of the
future, who may be perplexed at the reasons for the failure of the
liturgical renewal, especially in the United States, must consult those
documents and discover that what was called for by the fathers of the
council was never implemented in this country, because those who seized
control of the various offices and committees organized to put the council
into effect in this country went their own way and disregarded the
directives of the fathers.
Even without consulting this supporting documentation, one can conclude
from simple common sense that what has happened in this country is not what
the Church has wished or ordered. We need only look at the typical American
parish church with its secular music (folk, western, ballads, country), its
instrumental combos imitating dance and entertainment groups, its lack of
reverence, its priests who know not a note of chant or a word of Latin
(when the council ordered both to be fostered and used). What has happened
to the faith of our people? The liturgy is to be the primary source of
holiness, according to Pius X. But it has become the chief reason why so
many have turned away from an active practice of their faith, even perhaps
losing their faith entirely.
But most of this rejection of the council's decrees, which were built on
the gradual development fostered under many popes, is fast being discovered
for what it is: disobedience to the Church's highest authority, the pope
and the bishops in ecumenical council. We are awaking to the fact that we
have lost ground, not moved along in the renewal of the liturgical life of
the Church. We are in worse condition now than when the council opened in
1963. But a new generation is arising, anxious to live the Christian life
that the liturgy is to foster. They are rejecting the ideas and the
unfortunate practices of the sixties. Frankly, most of them are bored by
the ceremonies and music that are supposed to attract them. Today's
liturgists and composers have not had a new idea since the sixties. But
now, a great desire to implement the council's wishes has arisen,
especially among young priests, who in spite of their lack of true
preparation in our seminaries, have developed an interest in the true
liturgical demands of the council. They are asking why they have been
cheated by those whose duty it is to instruct them in the wishes of the
Church, particularly in conciliar decrees. They have been deprived of the
the opportunity to learn about the highest directives that will be the
beacon light for the progress of the Church through the next century. They
want the truth, not the whims and opinions of liturgists.
So there is hope that the liturgical renewal seen by the popes and
expressed by the council will eventually blossom. When the present
generation of composers, guitar players, combos, seminary music teachers
and diocesan music commissions passes away, the truth will finally be
discovered and implemented. We will have passed by the revolution and left
it behind and returned to a logical and gradual growth as begun in the
nineteenth century, ordered by the various popes, and crowned by the
Vatican Council.
