ARTICLE
Sacrosanctum Concilium is one of the most important documents of the Vatican II, one that has been the least understood and, I believe, has wrought the most havoc — not by having been fulfilled – but by having been ignored or misinterpreted.
This
essay is based on a lecture on the liturgy given by Father Fessio in May, 1999.
The
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was one of two
documents issued on the same day, December 4, 1963, the first two documents
issued by the Second Vatican Council. The other document, Inter Mirifica, is on
social communication. Sacrosanctum Concilium is one of the most important
documents of the Council, one that has been the least understood and, I
believe, has wrought the most havoc — not by having been fulfilled
– but by having been ignored or misinterpreted.
Now
there should be no argument about the central intent of the Council concerning
the liturgy. The Council actually spells out its intent, in paragraph 14 of Sacrosanctum
Concilium: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should
be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical
celebrations, which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.” The
key words here are “full, conscious, and active participation.” The
Latin for “active participation” is actuosa participatio.
I
did a little research into previous uses of that expression in papal and other
ecclesial documents. The first papal usage was in 1903 by Pope St. Pius X, whose
motto was “Omnia Instaurare in Christo” (To restore all things in
Christ). He considered himself a pope of renewal. He was elected in August of
1903 and in November, he issued one of the first documents of his pontificate,
a motu proprio called Tra Le Solicitudini, that is, “Among the
Concerns.” This was a document on the renewal of sacred music. In it, the
Holy Father states, “In order that the faithful may more actively
participate in the sacred liturgy, let them be once again made to sing
Gregorian Chant as a congregation.”
That’s
what the term “active participation” meant when it was first used
in a papal document. But it had been used ten years earlier in another
document, issued by Pius X before he was pope. He was the patriarch of Venice,
and the document — as it turns out — was actually written by a
Jesuit, with the wonderful name of Angelo dei Santi (“angel of the
saints”). Sounds like a fictitious name.
In
any case, the first use of actuosa participatio, i.e., active participation,
referred explicitly and exclusively to the restoration of the congregational
singing of Gregorian Chant. In 1928, Pope Pius XI reiterated the point in his
Apostolic Letter, Divini Cultus. Nineteen years after that, in the Magna Carta
of liturgical reform, Mediator Dei, issued by Pius XII, the same term was used
with the same meaning. So until the Second Vatican Council, the term
“active participation” referred exclusively to the singing of
Gregorian Chant by the people.
No
Innovations Unless the Good of the Church Requires Them
But
back to the Council. In the same paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 14,
the Council continues: “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred
liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be
considered before all else.” So the Council itself defines the primary
aim of liturgical renewal: full, conscious and active participation. How does
the Council initially intend for the aim to be achieved? That, also, is not
something we have to guess at or speculate on: “And, therefore, pastors
of souls must zealously strive to achieve it by means of the necessary
instruction in all their pastoral work.” The Council’s idea is
clear: the liturgy is to be renewed by promoting more active participation
through the means of greater education. Nothing whatsoever is said here about
any kind of changes or reform of the rite itself. Later, when changes are
discussed, the Council states in paragraph 23: “There must be no
innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires
them.” So no changes unless there is a real, proven, demonstrable need.
Paragraph
23 continues: “And care must be taken that any new forms adopted should
in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” Organic growth
— like a plant, a flower, a tree — not something constructed by an
intellectual elite, not things fabricated and tacked on, or brought back from
ten centuries ago, or fifteen centuries ago, but an organic growth.
That’s what the Council itself said.
Paragraph
48 begins the chapter on the Mass. And the title of this chapter is
interesting. It’s not called “The Eucharist” or “The
Mass”; it’s called “The Most Sacred Mystery of the
Eucharist.” Even in the chapter title, you have the sense that
what’s important is mystery, sacredness, awe, the transcendence of God.
Paragraph
48 returns to the theme of greater awareness, a greater knowledge of the
faithful, in order that they might enter more fully into the mysteries
celebrated: “For this reason the Church, therefore, earnestly desires
that Christ’s faithful, when present at the mystery of faith should not
be there as strangers or silent spectators. On the contrary, through a good
understanding of the rites and prayers, they should take part in the sacred
action conscious of what they are doing with devotion and full
collaboration.” Then, in paragraph 49, the document says, “For this
reason the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated
with assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and Feasts of
Obligation, has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the
Mass, even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally
efficacious in the fullest degree.”
Paragraphs
50 to 58 contain nine specific changes the Council had in mind for the renewal
of the liturgy. But before we consider them, we must recall that when the
Council made these proposals, it didn’t dream them up overnight. Although
this was the first document issued at the Council, it was not issued without long
preparation. The modern liturgical movement began in the middle of the 19th
century. It was given great impetus by Pius X himself, in the beginning of the
20th century, and by years of study, prayer, and liturgical congresses during
the first half of the century. In fact, after Mediator Dei in 1947, there were
seven international liturgical conferences, attended by liturgical experts, by
pastors and by Roman officials. If you read the minutes of those meetings and
the concrete proposals they made, you will see that what the Council outlines
here is the fruit of those meetings. This is really the distillation of the
prayer and reflection that was the culmination of the liturgical movement,
which had existed for over a century prior to the Council.
Nine Proposals
What
are the nine liturgical proposals, or the nine liturgical mandates, of the
Council? Paragraph 50 says the rites are to be simplified and those things that
have been duplicated with the passage of time or added with little advantage,
are to be discarded. And, after the Council, this reform did take place in many
ways. I think it took place to a much greater degree than the Council intended,
but there are certain simplifications in the Mass that the Council clearly
intended.
Paragraph
51: The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more fully. That has been
accomplished by a greater number of readings from the Bible interspersed
throughout the liturgical cycle, both in the Sunday and weekday cycles. Now,
especially if you attend daily Mass, you have a much richer fare, if you will
– a much expanded selection of Biblical readings.
Paragraph
52 says: “The homily is to be highly esteemed as part of the Liturgy
itself.” The Council called for a greater effort to have good homilies
and I think the effort has been made. Whether the homilies are better or not,
you can judge for yourselves. Paragraph 53 says that the Common Prayer or
Prayer of the Faithful should be restored, and that’s been done, too.
Paragraph
54 is a key paragraph: “In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a
suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue.” What did the
Council have in mind? Let’s continue: “This is to apply in the
first place, to the readings and to the Common Prayer. But also as local
conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people.” Yet
it goes on to say, “Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the
faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of
the Ordinary of the Mass” — (that is, the unchanging parts, the
parts that are there every day) – “which pertain to them.”
So,
the Council did not abolish Latin in the liturgy. The Council permitted the
vernacular in certain limited ways, but clearly understood that the fixed parts
of the Mass would remain in Latin. Again, I am just telling you what the
Council said.
Paragraph
55 discusses receiving Communion, if possible, from hosts consecrated at the
Mass in which you participate. That is often done or attempted in many parishes
today, but it is difficult to do in a precise way. It’s hard to calculate
the exact number of hosts you will need. Also, you have to keep some hosts in
the Tabernacle for the sick and for adoration. The Council also permits
Communion under both species here, but under very limited circumstances. For
example, “to the newly ordained in the Mass of the Sacred Ordination, or
the newly professed in the Mass of Profession, and the newly baptized in the
Mass which follows baptism.” The Council itself did not call for offering
both species to all the faithful all the time, but it did grant limited
permission for it.
Paragraph
56 says that there are two parts of the Liturgy, the Word and the Eucharist,
and that a pastor should insistently teach the faithful to take part in the
entire Mass, especially on Sundays and Feasts of Obligation. That is, to
consider the first part of the Mass, the Table of the Word, as a significant
and essential part of the Mass, so you don’t think you have gone to Mass
just by coming after the Offertory and being there for the Consecration and
Communion.
Paragraph
57 states that concelebration should be permitted; paragraph 58, that a new
rite for concelebration is to be drawn up.
That
is the sum total of the nine mandates of the Council for change in the ritual
itself, although there are a few other pertinent paragraphs to mention here.
In
paragraph 112, in which the Council speaks specifically of music, we read:
“The musical tradition of the Universal Church is a treasure of
inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art.” That is a
stupendous and shocking statement; the Council actually says that the
Church’s music is a treasure of art greater than any other treasure of
art she has. Think about that. Think about Chartres Cathedral. Think about the
Pieta. Think about Da Vinci’s Last Supper. Think of all the crucifixes
from Catalonia in Spain, and all the Church architecture and art and paintings
and sculpture. The Council boldly says that the Church’s musical tradition
is a treasure of inestimable value greater than any other art.
But
the Council would be remiss in making such a shocking statement without giving
a reason for it: “The main reason for this preeminence is that, as sacred
song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn
liturgy.” What that means is this: it’s wonderful to have a
beautiful church, stained glass windows, statues, a noble crucifix, prayerful
architecture that lift your heart up to God. But those are all surroundings of
the Mass. It’s the “worship environment,” as they would say
today. But it’s not the Mass itself. The Council says that when the Mass
itself is set to music, that’s what ennobles music, which, itself,
enhances the Mass; and that’s what makes the musical tradition the most
precious tradition of the Church.
Notice,
however, that the Council implies what many Church documents have said
explicitly – that the most perfect form of music at Mass is not the
hymns, the so-called “Gathering hymn” and its antithesis – I guess
you would call it the “Scattering hymn” – at the end. The
most appropriate use of music at Mass, as seen by Church tradition and
reaffirmed by the Council, is singing the Mass itself: the Kyrie, the Agnus
Dei, the Sanctus, the Acclamations, the Alleluias and so on. Again, this
isn’t Father Fessio’s pet theory; this is what the Council actually
says. Paragraph 112 adds, “Sacred music is to be considered the more holy
in proportion as it is the more closely connected with the liturgical action
itself.” This reinforces my point.
Paragraph
114 adds: “The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered
with great care.” Then in paragraph 116 we find another shocker:
“The Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially suited to the Roman
Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place
in liturgical services.” That’s what the Council actually said. If
you are in a parish which prides itself on living the spirit of Vatican II,
then you should be singing Gregorian chant at your parish. And if you’re
not singing the Gregorian Chant, you’re not following the specific
mandate of the Second Vatican Council.
Now,
just a little footnote on the Gregorian Chant. In reflecting on these things
about Church music, I began to think about the Psalms a few years back. And a
very obvious idea suddenly struck me. Why it didn’t come earlier I
don’t know, but the fact is that the Psalms are songs. Every one of the
150 Psalms is meant to be sung; and was sung by the Jews. When this thought
came to me, I immediately called a friend, a rabbi in San Francisco who runs
the Hebrew School, and I asked, “Do you sing the Psalms at your
synagogue?” “Well, no, we recite them,” he said. “Do
you know what they sounded like when they were sung in the Old Testament times
and the time of Jesus and the Apostles?” I asked. He said, “No, but
why don’t you call this company in Upstate New York. They publish Hebrew
music, and they may know.”
So,
I called the company and they said, “We don’t know; call 1-800-JUDAISM.”
So I did. And I got an information center for Jewish traditions, and they
didn’t know either. But they said, “You call this music teacher in
Manhattan. He will know.” So, I called this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan
and we had a long conversation. At the end, I said, “I want to bring some
focus to this, can you give me any idea what it sounded like when Jesus and his
Apostles sang the Psalms?” He said, “Of course, Father. It sounded
like Gregorian Chant. You got it from us.”
I
was amazed. I called Professor William Mart, a Professor of Music at Stanford
University and a friend. I said, “Bill, is this true?” He said,
“Yes. The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody and
psalmody.” So, you know something? If you sing the Psalms at Mass with
the Gregorian tones, you are as close as you can get to praying with Jesus and
Mary. They sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today in
Gregorian Chant.
So,
the Council isn’t calling us back to some medieval practice, those
“horrible” medieval times, the “terrible” Middle Ages,
when they knew so little about liturgy that all they could do was build a
Chartres Cathedral. (When I see cathedrals and churches built that have a tenth
of the beauty of Notre Dame de Paris, then I will say that the liturgists have
the right to speak. Until then, they have no right to speak about beauty in the
liturgy.) But my point is that at the time of Notre Dame de Paris in the 13th
century, the Psalms tones were already over a thousand years old. They are called
Gregorian after Pope Gregory I, who reigned from 590 to 604. But they were
already a thousand years old when he reigned. He didn’t invent Gregorian
chant; he reorganized and codified it and helped to establish musical schools
to sing it and teach it. It was a reform; it wasn’t an invention. Thus,
the Council really calls us back to an unbroken tradition of truly sacred music
and gives such music pride of place.
The
last thing I want to quote from the Council is paragraph 128, which talks about
sacred art and sacred furnishings: “Along with the revisions of
liturgical books . . . there is to be an earlier revision of the canons and
ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provisions of material things involved
in sacred worship. These laws refer especially to the worthy and well-planned
construction of sacred buildings, the shape and construction of altars, the
nobility, placing and safety of the Eucharistic tabernacle, the dignity and
suitability of the baptistery . . .” and so on.
What the
Council Didn’t Say
That’s
essentially what the Second Vatican Council actually said about the renewal of
the liturgy. Let me tell you what it did not say. The Council did not say that
tabernacles should be moved from their central location to some other location.
In fact, it specifically said we should be concerned about the worthy and
dignified placing of the tabernacle. The Council did not say that Mass should
be celebrated facing the people. That is not in Vatican II; it is not
mentioned. It is not even raised in the documents that record the formation of
the Constitution on the Liturgy; it didn’t come up. Mass facing the
people is a not requirement of Vatican II; it is not in the spirit of Vatican
II; it is definitely not in the letter of Vatican II. It is something
introduced in 1969.
And,
by the way, never in the history of the Church, East or West, was there a
tradition of celebrating Mass facing the people. Never, ever, until 1969. It
happened occasionally in Germany, in between the wars; it was done sometimes at
the castle where Romano Guardini would have his group of students meet; it was
done in Austria near Vienna by Pius Parsch in a special church, in what he
called a “liturgical Mass.” That’s an odd expression, a
“liturgical Mass.” The Mass is the liturgy.
But
in any event, I can say without fear of contradiction from anyone who knows the
facts that there is simply no tradition whatsoever, in the history of the
Church, of Mass facing the people. Now, is it a sin? No. Is it wrong? No. Is it
permitted? Yes. It is required? Not at all. In fact in the Latin Roman Missal,
which is the typical edition that all the translations of the Missal are based
on (not always translated properly, but at least based on it) the rubrics
actually presuppose the Mass facing East, the Mass facing the Lord.
Now,
for the first 25 years of my priesthood, I celebrated Mass like you see it when
you go to a typical parish: in English, facing the people. It can be done
reverently; I’ve seen it done reverently; I’ve tried to do it reverently
myself. But the last three years, after study and reflection, I’ve
changed. I actually think the Mass facing the people is a mistake. But, even if
it’s not, at least this much we can say: there is no permission required
to say Mass facing God, facing the tabernacle, facing East, facing with the
people. And it should be given equal rights, it seems to me, with Mass facing
the people. It’s been around for 1800 years at least, and it should be
allowed to continue. I happen to think it’s symbolically richer.
It’s
true that when the priest faces the people for the celebration of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice, there may be a sense of greater unity as a community.
But there is also a danger of the priest being the performer and you being the
spectator — precisely what the Council did not want: priest performers
and congregational spectators. But there is something more problematic. You can
see it, perhaps, by contrasting Mass facing the people with Mass facing East or
facing the Lord. I don’t say Mass “with my back to the
people” anymore than Patton went through Germany with his “back to
the soldiers.” Patton led the Third Army across Germany and they followed
him to achieve a goal. The Mass is part of the Pilgrim Church on the way to our
goal, our heavenly homeland. This world is not our heavenly homeland. We
don’t sit around in a circle and look at each other. We want to look with
each other and with the priest towards the rising sun, the rays of grace, where
the Son will come again in glory on the clouds.
And
so, in Mass celebrated in the traditional way, the priest does face the people
when he speaks on God’s behalf to proclaim the Word and explain it. And
he does face the people when he receives their gifts. And then he turns to face
with the people and to offer those gifts up to our common Father, praying that
the Holy Spirit will come down and transform those gifts into the Body and
Blood of Christ. And when that most sacred act takes place, the priest turns to
offer the gifts back to the people. I think that is much more dramatic. Whether
I am right or not, all I’m asking is a right to exist. If not peaceful
coexistence, at least coexistence.
Now
strange as it may appear, there is absolutely no permission required to say
Mass facing East. The Pope does it every morning in his chapel. But there is
such a taboo against it that most pastors would be afraid to do it for fear
they would be exiled to some lowly parish.
The
Council also said nothing about moving the Tabernacle. It said nothing about
removing altar rails. It said nothing about taking out kneelers. It said
nothing about turning the altar around. It said nothing about multiple canons.
That, too, is an invention; a pure invention.
There
has never been in the Church a choice of Eucharistic prayers at a given
ceremony or a given Church. In the East, there were two main Eucharistic
prayers. Generally, they were regionally different, or used on different
feasts. But in the Roman rite, the Latin rite, there has always been one
Eucharistic prayer. It was different in Milan, slightly; it was different in
Spain, slightly, the Mozarabic rite; and it was different in a few other places
— the Dominican Order and some others after the Middle Ages. But there
was only one canon, the Eucharistic Prayer, the Roman canon. I happen to think
it is the best. Not only because of the fact that when I am saying it I am
uniting myself with what was actually said by the Fathers, and doctors, and
saints, and mystics of the Church for hundreds of years (more than a thousand
years) — but because I think it is richer.
One
problem, both at the time of the Council and after, is rationalism, which the
Holy Father has spoken against. This is the idea that we can do it all with our
own minds. The liturgists after the Council tried to construct a more perfect
liturgy. But you know something? When you’ve grown up in a house and a
room is added on and a story added on, a garage is added on, it may not be
architecturally perfect, but it’s your home. To destroy it and try to
construct a new one out of steel and glass and tile because that’s the
modern idea, is not the way you live a human life. But that’s
what’s happened to the liturgy.
Look
at the other canons. First of all, when I celebrate Mass with the Roman Canon,
I’ve often had people come up and say, “What canon was that,
Father?” I say, “Well, that was the Roman Canon, the one that has
been used for about 1600 years.” “Oh, I haven’t heard
that.” Generally, you get Canon Two. Why? Because it’s the
shortest. So, you can spend all kinds of time with singing, and the
commentators explaining things, and a long homily, with big processions and
greeters coming in and whatever else. But for the Sacrifice of the Mass, the
attitude seems to be “Let’s get that over as soon as we can with Canon
Two.”
Now,
where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of
Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled
to the Church and died a martyr. Around the year 215, he wrote an outline of
how Mass was celebrated in Rome. It was probably never used as a liturgical
text because in the early days of the Church there was no final, written
formalization of the liturgy, so this was an outline to be used by the
celebrant.
Thus,
the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it was, it ceased
being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council, which says changes
ought to come through organic growth and there should be no changes unless
necessary, we come to liturgists saying, “Oh, let’s pull this thing
out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth.”
That’s not organic growth; that’s archeologism, specifically
criticized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei.
The
Third Canon was entirely made up. There has never been a canon like the Third Canon
in the history of the Church, except in bits and pieces. Father Vagaggini, with
the help of Father Bouyer, I believe, actually constructed it using their
knowledge of liturgical history, which was enormous. But they totally invented
the canon. It would be like taking piece of a carrot, a piece of a tomato, a
piece of a peach and a piece of some tree, then putting them together and
saying, “Well, you see that? It’s organic.” But it’s
not organic; it’s constructed.
Canon
Four is based on an Eastern Egyptian canon, still used in the Eastern Church;
and so, there is some justification for it. But it’s seldom used today
because you can’t use it with any other prefaces; it has more or less
dropped by the wayside.
The
point is that the Council did not call for a multiplication of canons, and I
think there are lots of other reasons for sticking with the Roman canon. Nor
did the Council, as I mentioned, abolish Latin. It specifically mandated the
retention of Latin and only permitted the use of the vernacular in certain
circumstances. And, finally, the Council did not prohibit Gregorian Chant, as
you might be led to think from its absence in your parishes. The Council
actually prescribed Gregorian Chant to have pride of place.
Pope John
Paul II Addresses the Bishops
So,
that is what the Council actually said. I’ve been saying this now for
several years. Because I’ve been saying it and other things, Archbishop
Weakland has called me a “papal maximalist,” but a year and a few
months ago I was with him at an all-day meeting in Chicago on the liturgy. It
was a very congenial meeting, actually; there were eight or nine of us there.
And towards the end, they were discussing a document, the Pope’s address
to the bishops of the Northwest in 1998. Remember, in 1998 all the bishops of
the United States went to Rome for their Ad Limina visit. For one whole year,
as each group of bishops came, the Holy Father spoke to them on how to
interpret the Second Vatican Council in a way that will lead us into the Third
Millennium.
It
happened that when the bishops from the Northwest came – from Alaska,
Washington, Oregon, Montana and Idaho — the Holy Father spoke on the
liturgy. Archbishop Weakland and others were not particularly happy with what
the pope said. And so I took the occasion in the afternoon to say to Archbishop
Weakland, “You know, Archbishop you’ve publicly called me a papal
maximalist. You published an article in America magazine in which you used that
title for me. But you know, I can’t help it. The Pope keeps agreeing with
me.”
Here’s
what the Pope said to the bishops of the Northwestern United States: “The
two-thousandth anniversary of the birth of the Savior is a call to all
Christ’s followers to seek a genuine conversion to God and a great
advance to holiness. Since the Liturgy is such a central part of the Christian
life, I wish today to consider some aspects of the liturgical renewal so
vigorously promoted by the Second Vatican Council, as the prime agent of the
wider renewal of Catholic life.” So, the Council itself wanted to renew
Catholic life. And within that, it wanted to renew the liturgy. The Pope is
saying here that as we look toward the year 2000, we must go back and see what
the Council wanted for liturgical renewal, because that is the prime agent of
the wider renewal of Catholic life.
He
continues: “To look back over what has been done in the field of
liturgical renewal since the Council is first to see many reasons for giving
heartfelt thanks and praise to the Most Holy Trinity for the marvelous
awareness which had developed among the faithful of their role and
responsibility in the priestly work of Christ and his Church. It is also to
realize that not all changes have always and everywhere been accompanied by the
necessary explanation and catechesis. As a result, in some cases there has been
a misunderstanding of the very nature of the Liturgy, leading to abuses,
polarization, sometimes even grave scandal.”
The
Pope generally speaks diplomatically, especially to bishops. These are pretty
hard words, and this is the introduction, so obviously he’s going to give
some guidelines for avoiding this polarization, this grave scandal and these
abuses. He says, “After the experience of more than thirty years of
liturgical renewal we are well placed to assess both the strengths and
weaknesses of what has been done . . .” (listen carefully now)“ . .
. in order more confidently to plot our course into the future, which God has
in mind for His cherished people.” The Pope, here, speaks to our bishops,
looking toward the new millennium and says, in effect, Here is what I think is
the plan God has for all of his people as we move to the next millennium. And,
specifically, here is the liturgical blueprint that, I, the Holy Father,
believe we are to follow.
“The
challenge now,” he continues, “is to move beyond whatever
misunderstandings there have been and to reach the proper point of balance,
especially by entering more deeply into the contemplative dimension of worship,
which includes a sense of awe, reverence and adoration which are fundamental
attitudes in our relationship with God.”
What
does the Pope say we must do to restore balance? Enter more deeply into the
contemplative dimension of worship. Can you contemplate when you’ve got
drummers up in the sanctuary? Where do we find the sense of awe? Not in this
“chatty” stuff at Mass: “Good morning, everybody.” Does
that inspire a sense of awe? “Have a nice day.” The Pope mentions
reverence and adoration. Standing is a sign of respect; but kneeling is a sign
of adoration. The Pope says we must restore the sense of adoration.
The
Pope says to the liturgists and the bishops, “The Eucharist gathers and
builds the human community, but it is also ‘the worship of the Divine
Majesty’.” That’s from Sacrosanctum Concilium, paragraph 33.
He continues: “It is subjective in that it depends radically upon what
the worshippers bring to it, but it is objective in that it transcends them as
the priestly act of Christ himself to which he associates us, but which
ultimately does not depend upon us.”
This
is why it’s so important that liturgical law be respected: an objective
act is taking place. “The priest, who is the servant of the liturgy and
not its inventor or producer, has a particular responsibility in this regard,
lest he empty the liturgy of its true meaning or obscure its sacred
character,” says the Holy Father.
Then
he talks about “The core of the mystery of Christian worship.” Is
the core of the mystery of Christian worship a sense that we are the people of
God? Is it feeling united with each other? Spiritual bonding? Not according to
the Pope, who says, “The core of the mystery of Christian worship is the
Sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father and the work of the Risen Christ who
sanctifies his people through the liturgical sign.” The sacrifice of
Christ, sanctification. That’s what the Pope says. Remember, he’s
looking now to lead the Church in the new millennium liturgically. He
continues: “It is, therefore, essential that in seeking to enter more
deeply into the contemplative depths of worship, the inexhaustible mystery of
the priesthood of Jesus Christ be fully acknowledged and respected.”
There
is a movement to refer to the celebrant as the “presider,” instead
of the “celebrant” or the “priest.” Now it’s
true, he is a presider. But that’s an abstraction; and I think
there’s an agenda behind the abstraction. You see, all the Sacraments
need someone who presides: at Confirmation, at the Eucharist, at Confession
— and at Baptism. And who can preside at Baptism? The priest is the
ordinary minister and presider, but under certain unusual circumstances a
layman — man or woman — and even a non-Catholic can preside at
Baptism. And, so, I believe some people want to get us in the habit of thinking
of the priest as a presider primarily because that’s an abstract term,
which could include women.
What
does the Pope say about the matter? “The priest, therefore, is not just
one who presides, but one who acts in the person of Christ.” You see, only
the priest can act in persona Christi capitis, in the name of the Bridegroom
(Jesus) over against the Bride (the Church) in the nuptial act, which is the
Mass.
Full,
Conscious and Active Participation
The
Holy Father next discusses three attributes of the liturgy: full, conscious and
active participation. Remember that I began by reading paragraph 14 of
Sacrosanctum Concilium, which states that the purpose of the Council in
renewing the liturgy was to achieve full, conscious, active participation?
Well, those words can have different meanings. It is very interesting to find
out what the Pope thinks they mean, as he tells us what he believes God is
calling the Church to do in the liturgy in the new millennium.
First,
he talks about the fullness of participation. “The sharing of all the
baptized in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the
Church’s call for full, conscious and active participation. Full
participation certainly means that every member of the community has a part to
play in the liturgy. And in this respect, a great deal has been achieved in
parishes and communities across your land. But, full participation does not
mean that everyone does everything. Since this would lead to a clericalizing of
the laity and a laicizing of the priesthood, and this was not what the Council
had in mind.”
What
does he mean by “clericalizing the laity”? It’s the idea
that, for example, the lector, the server at the altar, or the cross-bearer participates
more actively than the mother with her child in the back of church. It’s
the idea that being more like the priest in the sanctuary somehow makes you
participate more fully. But the Pope says no to that idea. No, the
“clericalizing of the laity” and the “laicizing of the
clergy,” whereby the priest doesn’t do priestly things but sits
while lay people are distributing the Eucharist, are not what the Council had
in mind, says the Pope.
“The
liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic,”
he says. Not concentric and egalitarian, but hierarchical and polyphonic:
“Respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the
different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise.” I’m not saying
there shouldn’t be lectors and acolytes, and so on. There should be. But
the point is, it’s not how close you get to the altar that determines how
fully you participate. If that were the case, then those who aren’t
ministers of some sort at Mass would be second-class participants. That’s
not what the Council meant, says the Pope, by full participation.
Then
the Pope comes to active participation. “Active participation certainly
means that in gesture, word, song, and service all the members of the community
take part in an active worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet
active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence,
stillness, and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive,
for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily or following the
prayers of the celebrant and the chants in music of the Liturgy. These are
experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way, profoundly
active. In a culture that neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art
of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see the liturgy,
though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be
counter-cultural.”
Especially
in our noisy world, we need to have silence. Especially in our world where it
is hard to pray, we need to have contemplative adoration. In a world that
doesn’t respect the liturgical cycles and seasons, we need to celebrate
the Feast of the Ascension on a Thursday, not on a Sunday. Precisely because we
have to be counter-cultural, we need to say there’s something more
important than the workday. It’s our feast day.
Finally,
the Holy Father discusses conscious participation. He says, “Conscious
participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the
mysteries of the liturgy” — the Council’s main instruction
— “lest the experience of worship degenerate into a form of
ritualism. But it does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to
make the implicit explicit, since this often leads to verbosity and informality
which are alien to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of
worship.”
Conscious
participation, then, is not a multiplication of commentators telling us
what’s happening as the Mass goes along; it’s not laid back
informality and the trivializing of the liturgy. That’s why I think it
may seem like a small thing, but it’s a very bad to begin a liturgy by
saying, “Good morning, everyone.” That’s not how you begin a
sacred liturgy. You begin a sacred liturgy, “In the Name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” or better yet, “In nomine
Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.”
The
Holy Father continues: “Nor does conscious participation mean the
suppression of all subconscious experience, which is vital in a liturgy which
thrives on symbols that speak to the subconscious, just as they speak to the
conscious. The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of
the liturgy to all who take part.” There is, then, a positive value to
the vernacular. “But,” the Holy Father continues, “this does
not mean that the Latin language, and especially, the Chants which are so
superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman rite, should be wholly
abandoned.”
What,
then, does the Pope say about full, conscious, active participation? That it
should be hierarchical, that there should be quiet, and worship in awe and
reverence, and that there should be a place for Latin and, certainly for Chant
in the liturgy. I submit to you that in most parishes across this country
that’s not what you habitually find at the ordinary Masses for the
people. Thus, although the Pope doesn’t say it in so many words, he is of
the opinion that the way Mass is currently celebrated doesn’t conform
fully to the mandates of the Council, as intended by the Church for the next
century.
We
have now two extremes and a moderate position. One extreme position is the kind
of informal Mass, all in English, facing the people, with contemporary music,
which does not at all correspond with what the Council had in mind. But it is
legitimate, it is permitted; it is not wrong. And we have on the other extreme
those who have returned, with permission, to the Mass of 1962 and, as others
have noted, it is thriving and growing. But it is not what the Council itself
specifically had in mind, although it is the Mass of the ages.
Then
you have the moderates. Those in the middle. Me and a few others. But I am
going to insist on my right as a Catholic and as priest to celebrate the
liturgy according to the Council, according to the presently approved
liturgical books, to celebrate a form of the Mass that therefore needs no
special permission—and which in fact cannot be prohibited—what
I’ve called “the Mass of Vatican II.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Father
Joseph Fessio, S.J., is publisher of Catholic Dossier and editor of Ignatius
Press.
From the Encyclical Letter
"Ecclesia de Eucharistia" of His Holiness Pope John Paul II
CHAPTER FOUR
The Eucharist and Ecclesial Communion
34.
The Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in 1985 saw in the concept
of an "ecclesiology of communion" the central and fundamental idea of
the documents of the Second Vatican Council.67 The Church is called during her
earthly pilgrimage to maintain and promote communion with the Triune God and
communion among the faithful. For this purpose she possesses the word and the
sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, by which she "constantly lives and
grows"68 and in which she expresses her very nature. It is not by chance
that the term communion has become one of the names given to this sublime
sacrament.
The
Eucharist thus appears as the culmination of all the sacraments in perfecting
our communion with God the Father by identification with his only-begotten Son
through the working of the Holy Spirit. With discerning faith a distinguished
writer of the Byzantine tradition voiced this truth: in the Eucharist
"unlike any other sacrament, the mystery [of communion] is so perfect that
it brings us to the heights of every good thing: here is the ultimate goal of
every human desire, because here we attain God and God joins himself to us in
the most perfect union".69 Precisely for this reason it is good to
cultivate in our hearts a constant desire for the sacrament of the Eucharist.
This was the origin of the practice of "spiritual communion", which
has happily been established in the Church for centuries and recommended by
saints who were masters of the spiritual life. Saint Teresa of Jesus wrote:
"When you do not receive communion and you do not attend Mass, you can
make a spiritual communion, which is a most beneficial practice; by it the love
of God will be greatly impressed on you".70
35.
The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for
communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it
seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of
this bond of communion both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and
through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among
ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the
teaching of the Apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church's hierarchical
order. The profound relationship between the invisible and the visible elements
of ecclesial communion is constitutive of the Church as the sacrament of
salvation.71 Only in this context can there be a legitimate celebration of the
Eucharist and true participation in it. Consequently it is an intrinsic
requirement of the Eucharist that it should be celebrated in communion, and
specifically maintaining the various bonds of that communion intact.
36.
Invisible communion, though by its nature always growing, presupposes the life
of grace, by which we become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet
1:4), and the practice of the virtues of faith, hope and love. Only in this way
do we have true communion with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor is
faith sufficient; we must persevere in sanctifying grace and love, remaining within
the Church "bodily" as well as "in our heart"; 72 what is
required, in the words of Saint Paul, is "faith working through love"
(Gal 5:6).
Keeping
these invisible bonds intact is a specific moral duty incumbent upon Christians
who wish to participate fully in the Eucharist by receiving the body and blood
of Christ. The Apostle Paul appeals to this duty when he warns: "Let a man
examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor
11:28). Saint John Chrysostom, with his stirring eloquence, exhorted the
faithful: "I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one
draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an
act, in fact, can never be called 'communion', not even were we to touch the
Lord's body a thousand times over, but 'condemnation', 'torment' and 'increase
of punishment'".73
Along
these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that
"anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation
before coming to communion".74 I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the
Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the
Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul's stern warning
when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner,
"one must first confess one's sins, when one is aware of mortal
sin".75
37.
The two sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance are very closely connected.
Because the Eucharist makes present the redeeming sacrifice of the Cross,
perpetuating it sacramentally, it naturally gives rise to a continuous need for
conversion, for a personal response to the appeal made by Saint Paul to the
Christians of Corinth: "We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled
to God" (2 Cor 5:20). If a Christian's conscience is burdened by serious
sin, then the path of penance through the sacrament of Reconciliation becomes
necessary for full participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
The
judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved,
since it is a question of examining one's conscience. However, in cases of
outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the
moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the
community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly
involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of
proper moral disposition when it states
See
the entire Encyclical at the following link