In the Winter 1991 issue of SACRED MUSIC, we read this article, which explains why the changes in liturgical music, following the Second Vatican Council, can only be properly understood when situated in the historical context of everything said by the twentieth century popes on the subject. Further, it seems that some, whose intent may not have been entirely pure, have capitalized on ambiguities in Sacrosanctum Conciliam, and pushed hard for the promotion of a particular spin on the text. However, this is clearly not what the Council Fathers ordered.
"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."
So there are spurious interpretations of the Council. How exactly those got to be the de facto standards, I cannot say. I was too young to be aware of what was going on. My first coherent memories are of a Folk Mass in my home parish. Even now, well into my adult life, I'm still trying to grasp more full what the Council really intended to say.
It was only a handful of years ago that I was exposed to the indult Mass. That experience was when I first became aware of what the Council Fathers took for granted as a baseline, from which liturgical reform would begin. I don't think I would shock anyone by saying it was totally foreign to anything I had ever experienced before. Thus, I concluded that the implementation of the Council directives in North America was a rupture with the past, and not an organic outgrowth, as it was supposed to be.
"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."
Paul, here's another question for you: why have the Pope, Ratzinger, and various curial officails seemed to give approval and approbation to the Catholic Charismatic movement? It seems like in some of the public speeches these prelates speak highly of the movement, but then when it comes down to it, they have no hesitation is putting an end to big parts of the Charismatic tradition, say the the Healing Mass. My own feelings are that they are approving the great vigor with which these folks practise their faith, and not so much their peculiar ways of doing it. Maybe they don't want to alienate any true sons of the Church by being too heavy handed. I guess they could just be heeding Gamileil's advice in Acts: if this is from God, we cannot stop it; if it is not from God, it will die of its own. Anyway, your thoughts?
I have some appreciation for the Charistmatic movement, since I was loosely affiliated with such a group, early in my reversion to the faith, years ago. The one thing I noticed about that particular group was their doctrinal orthodoxy. However, that was not the case when I moved to another city and attended Charismatic Masses there.
The Church is not going to condemn anything, unless there are clear grounds for doing so, like dogmatic error or disobedience. I recall reading something in the past about some of these events drifting toward emphasis on the spectactular - that is, miraculous healings, giving the Mass a circus-like atmosphere.
However, I've also been to Healing Masses, so I know what they are like. I recall one priest who threatened that, if the congregation refused to maintain a prayerful atmosphere, he would stop praying over people. Maybe that has something to do with it.
In retrospect, I probably would not attend another such Mass, but if there were a way to carry out such an apostolate within the context of authentic liturgical reform, I would be all for anyone who would feel led to do so for themselves.