I Fr. O’Malleys bok om Vatikankonsilet har jeg funnet spesielt interessant hans beskrivelse av konsilets behandling av liturgidokumentet Sacrosanctum concilium i oktober og november 1962. Jeg siterer her noen utdrag fra O’Malleys bok.
Vi ser i første utdrag at det hadde vært noen stridigheter før dokumentet ble presentert for alle biskopene, og Bugnini hadde blitt avsatt som sekretær for arbeidet, selv om man nokså enstemmig ønsket å fortsette liturgirevisjonen slik den hadde blitt satt i gang bl.a. av pavene Pius X og Pius XII:
… on February 22 1962, the pope appointed Cardinal Larraona as the new prefect of the Congregation of Rites and therefore as head of the Preparatory Commission. … On that same February 22, the Vatican published Veterum Sapientia, the Apostolic Constitution that insisted on the intensification of study of Latin in seminaries. As noted, this text might be taken as indirectly confirming the place of Latin in the liturgy. not only signed the document but, in an address that day in St. Peter’s, singled it out for praise. Where did the pope himself stand on liturgical issues? It was anybody’s guess.
As was expected for the head of a Preparatory Commission, Cardinal Larraona became president of the Liturgical Commission of the council itself … On October 21, at the first meeting of the commission, moreover, he passed over Bugnini as secretary and replaced him with Ferdinando Antonelli, a priest working in the Curia at the Congregation of Rites. Larraona considered Bugnini too progressive and held him responsible for the disagreeable schema he inherited.
On October 22, the day after Bugnini’s dismissal, Larraona took the floor in St. Peter’s to say not much more than that Sacrosanctum Concilium would be introduced by Antonelli, who spoke for about twenty minutes. Antonelli began by making two general points. First, just as the Council of Trent and Vatican I had mandated revision and emendation of liturgical texts, experts were now unanimously convinced that, while holding fast to the liturgical tradition of the church, similar changes in texts and rites were needed «to accommodate them to the ethos and needs of our day.» The aggiornamento theme was clear.
Second, a great pastoral problem had to be addressed. The faithful had become «Mute spectators» at Mass instead of active participants in the liturgical action. This development, he said, dated back to the Middle Ages, and recent popes, beginning with Pius X, had taken steps to remedy it. To deal with these issues, Pius XII had established a commission in 1948 that produced a full volume of reflections and recommendations. In 1951 Pius, acting on the recommendations, had restored the Easter Vigil and, in 1955, the liturgy for the entire Sacred Triduum, the last three days of Holy Week. Antonelli, by convincingly arguing that Sacrosanctum Concilium was in keeping with recent papal teaching and actions, was able to forestall a problem that would dog other schemas at the council.
He listed five criteria that had guided the Preparatory Commission in drawing up the schema. First, the commission would exercise great care in conserving the liturgical patrimony of the church. Second, it would be guided by a few principles that would undergird a general renewal (instauratio) of the liturgy. Third, it would derive its practical and rubrical directives from a doctrinal base. Fourth, it would insist on the necessity of instilling in the clergy a deeper sense of «the liturgical spirit» so that they could be effective teachers of the faithful. Finally, it would take as its aim leading the faithful into an ever more active participation in the liturgy. The document in hand, he reminded his audience, had been approved by the Central Preparatory Commission and was thus ready for examination by the council fathers. …
Dette temaer fortsetter i nye innlegg.