The renewal of Vatican II was experienced most immediately and visibly through the reform of the liturgy. Similarly, resistance to this reform continues to be the harbinger of all other debates surrounding the role and perception of Vatican II in contemporary Catholicism. As we mark the 60th anniversary of Sacrosanctum concilium, this session will address the following topics: the implementation of the liturgical reform of Vatican II, especially in multi-cultural and racially diverse Catholic contexts, in its historical and contemporaneous expressions, and from Latin and Eastern rite Catholic perspectives; the relationship between criticism of the liturgical reform and criticism of Vatican II in militant Catholic groups, including reactions to pope Francis’ motu proprio Traditionis Custodes; the ecclesiology implied in the Constitution on the Liturgy and the work of the post-conciliar commission for the reform of the Roman Rites.
This paper will present the case that Pope Francis is a liturgical reformer par excellence and a worthy successor to Paul VI who carried out the monumental postconciliar liturgical reform, and also explore the reasons why Francis has not been entirely successful in persuading those who resist his efforts.
The use of the vernacular in the liturgy was a special concern of the prelates working in Africa during the Second Vatican Council. This paper discusses how the African Church problematized this issue at the antepreparatory phase, contributed to debating it in the conciliar phase, and has tried to receive the conciliar compromise on the Latin-vernacular issue (Sacrosanctum Concilium 36, 54, and 101). It will do so in two steps. Firstly, through a contextual analysis of the vota of these prelates and their inputs on this issue at the Council, the movement from discordance at the antepreparatory phase to a compromise at the conciliar phase of the Council will be accounted for. Secondly, using the historical-critical method, a reception case study of Igboland-Nigeria will be presented, considering the socio-political, economic, and cultural factors influencing the reception and rejection that greeted the conciliar authorization of the use of the vernacular.
Orientalium Ecclesiarum called the Eastern Catholic Churches to rediscover and preserve their heritage. This appeal concerned their spiritual, theological, and liturgical legacy and the established discipline of life (OE 5,6). After Vatican II, the Ukrainian Archeparchy of Philadelphia got into a whirlpool of discussions and arguments pro and contra of how it should live, develop, and preserve its heritage. These discussions were also on liturgical themes related to preserving the Ukrainian church heritage in diaspora, the liturgical language and calendar, and overcoming the Latinization of the rite. The hierarchy and laity did not always have the same perspective on these topics. Therefore, this paper will focus on the discussions on preserving the rite and liturgical changes and challenges after the council in the Ukrainian Archeparchy of Philadelphia. This analysis will consider the diaspora character of the faithful and the religious and cultural context in which they lived.
This paper focuses on Sacrosanctum Concilium 37-40, especially article 40, in which the Council admits the potential for “an even more radical adaptation” of the liturgy than what is explicitly outlined in articles 37-39. Specifically, this paper explores the realization of this potential among ecclesial base communities in El Salvador (CEBs, by their initials in Spanish), drawing on qualitative dissertation research carried out in El Salvador in 2022. This exploration of several different facets of the CEBs’ extra-ordinary liturgical celebrations will suggest that their liturgical creativity is a legitimate development of the liturgical theology of the Second Vatican Council and encourage similar creative celebration among other ecclesial communities on the peripheries of the Catholic church.