Today we’ll look at the subsection “Adaptations Envisaged By No. 40 of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy.”
63. Apart from the adaptations provided for in the liturgical books, it may be that “in some places and circumstances an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties.” (SC 40) This is more than the sort of adaptations envisaged by the general instructions and the praenotanda of the liturgical books.
It presupposes that an episcopal conference has exhausted all the possibilities of adaptation offered by the liturgical books; that it has made an evaluation of the adaptations already introduced and maybe revised them before proceeding to more far-reaching adaptations.
The desirability or need for an adaptation of this sort can emerge in one of the areas mentioned above (cf. Nos. 5361) without the others being affected. Moreover, adaptations of this kind do not envisage a transformation of the Roman rite, but are made within the context of the Roman rite.
64. In some places when there are still problems about the participation of the faithful, a bishop or several bishops can set out their difficulties to their colleagues in the episcopal conference and examine with them the desirability of introducing more profound adaptations, if the good of souls truly requires it. (Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, Feb. 22, 1973, No. 84.)
It is the function of episcopal conferences to propose to the Apostolic See the modifications it wishes to adopt following the procedure set out below. (SC 40)
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is ready to receive the proposals of episcopal conferences and examine them, keeping in mind the good of the local churches concerned and the common good of the universal church, and to assist the process of inculturation where it is desirable or necessary. It will do this in accordance with the principles laid down in this instruction (cf. above, Nos. 33-51), and in a spirit of confident collaboration and shared responsibility.
I would have to object to the notion that connects “difficulty” with SC 40’s “radical adaptations.” Plus how this difficulty seems to be handled here. The age-old struggle of uniformity and unity: sure. Note the determining factor here is not the desire of liturgical leaders, but “the good of souls.” And more, a “problem” with … participation. It is good to see that three decades after the council, that the CDWDS has not forgotten one of the major pastoral principles of the council.