What is the Mass for?

I know I slept through most of my RCIA classes, but what is the Mass for if not to meet the spiritual needs of the people attending?

I’m sorry that you slept through your RCIA classes. Learning about God and the Catholic faith shouldn’t have to be boring!

The sacred liturgy is, above all things, the worship of God. Even if we were to get nothing out of Mass — we were distracted during the readings, or we didn’t understand them, the homily was replaced by a Bishop’s Annual Appeal video, and we did not receive Holy Communion (for whatever reason) — still, vere dignum et iustum est, aequum et salutáre, nos tibi semper et ubíque grátias ágere, Dómine, sancte Pater, omnípotens aetérne Deus, per Christum Dóminum nostrum.*

But there’s more to it than that, of course. Mass has four ends; the acronym “ACTS” or “PACT” has been used as a mnemonic.**

• Adoration
• Contrition
• Thanksgiving
• Supplication/Petition

Even when we don’t particularly feel contrite, the Mass calls us to contrition; even when we don’t feel like giving thanks, there is the Eucharist; even when we are struggling to adore God in the midst of natural disasters that take the lives of thousands and tens of thousands, the liturgy puts on our lips a Gloria or a Glory Be or an Alleluia; and even when we think we’re doing pretty well for ourselves, thankyouverymuch, the Prayer of the Faithful challenges us to be “poor in spirit” and to throw all our cares (and those of the whole world) upon the Lord. That’s meeting our spiritual needs, even when we don’t acknowledge we have them. (And the Mass is beneficial even for those who aren’t in attendance.)
All these ends are directed to the glorification of God: adoration and thanksgiving immediately so, and contrition and supplication mediately, for God is glorified in His mercy and generosity. Those latter two ends are directed toward our sanctification.

To be even more succinct, the Mass and the whole liturgy of the Church is directed to the glorification of God and the sanctification of humanity. That’s what Vatican II said several times:

Christ indeed always associates the Church with Himself in this great work wherein God is perfectly glorified and men are sanctified. (SC 7)

From the liturgy [...] the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God [...] is achieved in the most efficacious possible way. (SC 10)

The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the body of Christ, and, finally, to give worship to God. (SC 59)

There is hardly any proper use of material things which cannot thus be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God. (SC 61)

The purpose of sacred music [is] the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful. (SC 112)

[source]

* "It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, to give you thanks always and everywhere, Lord, Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, through Christ our Lord."

** Another mnemonic, PART, uses "Reparation" in place of "Contrition".  Yet another is ALTAR: Adore, Love, Thank, Ask, Repent.

Latin? In my Mass?!

I recently asked a Benedictine priest (who has a rather conservative liturgical ideal) what he thought about the virtual absence of Latin from the typical parish liturgical experience today.  I am referring to Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) article 54:

In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

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 which pertain to them.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

It seems that the only parts of this article that get real attention are the first and third sections, which deal with the inclusion of the vernacular in the Mass... potentially (and actually, as experience has shown) throughout the entire Mass.  But what about the second section?  “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 which pertain to them.”

The saying or singing in Latin of certain parts of the Order of Mass is not the experience of most Catholics nowadays.  In fact, the ability for the faithful to do so is virtually non-existent.  And yet, our weekly experience of the reformed liturgy includes 1) an expanded Lectionary, 2) the regularity of homilies, 3) the Prayer of the Faithful, 4) the use of the vernacular, 5) the partaking in the sacrifice offered at that Mass (rather than Hosts consecrated at a previous Mass and retrieved from the tabernacle), 6) Communion under both kinds, 7) and a new rite of concelebration.

Those seven reforms I just mentioned are part of the typical parish experience (priest shortage notwithstanding), and they are the products of articles 51-58 of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

So why have the other reforms been so successfully implemented (and then some!) and generally well-received, but that pesky little sentence in article 54 about Latin can’t seem to get its foot in the door?  Why do Catholics who otherwise support the reforms they experience from articles 51-58 become indignant whenever mention is made of the mere possibility of making Latin responses at Mass?  (Such a reaction can be found in the comment-boxes at the National Catholic Reporter web site, for example:  here, here, and here.)


What’s the problem with that sentence about Latin in article 54? People — at least SOME people — were making the responses in Latin before 1963. Why did it become impossible and undesirable?  Is it obsolete? Opposed to "full, conscious, and active participation"? A monastic ideal not appropriate for normal parish life? A compromise sentence which was never meant to be taken seriously?

Pray Tell and Liturgical Reform

+JMJ+

(This post is much longer than I thought it would be when I started, but I encourage you to read the whole thing.  And I must insist that this post is not, in any way, to be regarded as an affront or insult to the priesthood in general or to the priesthood of my brother, Fr. Charlie; nor as denigrating the piety or sincerity or faithfulness of Catholics like myself who regularly attend the Ordinary Form, like me.)

For the past several months, I have been reading and commenting at Pray Tell, a relatively new (September 2009, I think) blog about "worship, wit, and wisdom".  My personal liturgical and theological views seem a bit more "conservative" and "traditional" than that of the majority of the contributors to the blog.  Some of the commentors (on both sides of the divide) make scathing personal attacks and insults.  (I've been told I know more Latin than I know about the Catholic faith and liturgy, for example, and I assure you, I don't know very much Latin.)

Recently, in order to remind myself to write with charity, I began writing +JMJ+ at the top of my comments.  This was soon met with suspicion and a bit of a side-conversation.  Make of it what you will.

Since the blog's topic is primary liturgy, the new Roman Missal (third edition) is often the subject of posts and comments, especially the impending English translation of it.  Along with that comes a great deal of criticism about the Extraordinary Form (1962 Missal, since edited by Pope Benedict XVI) and its "liberation" through Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum.  For example, just this morning a post on the blog reads (with my emphases):

Evangelicals are crossing the Tiber to Catholicism. God bless ‘em. But why do I have this sinking feeling that some of them are way more Catholic than you or I would ever want to be? Watch for more support of the 1962 missal, I suspect.

I recommend you read the linked article.  I read it and didn't notice any particular indicators representing a particular support for the Extraordinary Form.  (Not that I would be opposed to such support; indeed, I would welcome it.)

Now, there's also an ongoing debate on Pray Tell about the Ordinary Form of the Roman Mass, specifically about the degree to which it embodies the Second Vatican Council's decrees on liturgical reform found in Sacrosanctum Concilium.  (This debate has a sub-thread which continually points out how the Extraordinary Form is, so far, un-reformed in regards to Sac. Conc.)  For example, Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, who has an editorial role at Pray Tell, made this comment in response to someone's remark about the pope's open-mindedness in promulgating Summorum Pontificum (with my emphasis):

Yes – but on the other hand: the bishops of the world begged the Pope not to do this; several conferences implored him. He did it anyway. While his act might seem generous, it is a generosity that cannot possibly be reconciled with the directives of the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II never intended that an unreformed rite would be existence alongside a reformed one. There is no way that the 1962 Mass meets the reformist requirements of the Council. This is a serious problem, in my view. And it is a problem that will compound as the anomaly continues in coming years and decades. How will they ever phase out 1962, as obedience to the Council would require?

I replied, in part, that

I think the 1962 Missal will be “phased out” by slowly but surely applying the reforms clearly expressed in Sacrosanctum Concilium to it. I don’t know how long it will take, I don’t know if I’ll live to see it, but I think the Pope believes that the E.F. and the O.F. are both in need of reform to a “middle way”. The E.F. was not intended to exist indefinitely without being reformed, and the O.F. — and perhaps I’m being wild here — was not the intended result of the reform.

Now, this final remark of mine — that the Ordinary Form liturgy as it exist in the books (and not merely as it is poorly celebrated in many places) might not be an accurate product of the liturgical reform expressed in Sac. Conc. and intended by the Council Fathers who approved that Constitution — is one which others have expressed on Pray Tell and one which is seems completely out of bounds.

I made a later remark where I compared Pope Benedict's act (of approving the 1962 Missal for celebration alongside the Ordinary Form) with Pope Paul VI's act (of approving the 1969 Missal), and asked why it was that the 1969 Missal is regarded as consonant/reconcilable with the liturgical reform expressed by the Council Fathers in Sac. Conc.:

Pope Paul VI, though he did not personally develop the Ordinary Form, approved and promulgated it. But does that necessarily mean it accurately captures the liturgical vision of the 2000+ Council Fathers? Is the way we account for the seeming disparity between certain statements or “decrees” in Sac. Conc. and their relative reception in the Ordinary Form Missal, simply to say that because the Consilium was charged with implementing Sac. Conc. and the Pope approved the final product, it’s official?

In other words, does it come down, ultimately, to the approval of the missal by Pope Paul VI?

Then why is the approval of the yet-unreformed missal by Pope Benedict XVI received differently? Fr. Anthony questions whether it is reconcilable with Vatican II, but some Catholics question how the Ordinary Form is reconcilable with Vatican II as well.

Now, I should make it clear here, as I do at Pray Tell, that:

I’m not calling the [Ordinary Form] invalid or heretical or any of that. I wouldn’t attend it weekly or daily if I thought so. [I should add that I wouldn't be writing a catechetical series on the new English translation of the Ordinary Form if I thought it was invalid or heretical!] I’m just saying it’s possible it’s not what the Council Fathers intended, and that it, like other liturgical reforms of history, may eventually be undone to some degree.

A particular liturgy, as a product of a particular reform, can be official and yet be found wanting or insufficient later and be "rolled back" or re-reformed.  It has happened in the history of the Church.

So how was my question about Paul VI's approval of the 1969 Missal received?  Fr. Anthony replied:

What a strange era we’re in! It is now acceptable to question the approved liturgy of the Church! This ought to be quite daring, and it ought to shock people because it’s bordering on dissent and disobedience. But it is now a commonplace. How did we get to that place? Very strange indeed.

The Council Fathers didn’t prescribe every detail, they laid out general principles. Consilium followed these, without a doubt. Consilium could have gone much further on many points, but they didn’t; they could have been more restrained on some points, but they weren’t. They made their decisions, and the Supreme Pontiff approved them. And so did virtually every single bishop of the Catholic world, all of whom were there for the council debates and decisions.

This chipping away at lawful reform as prescribed by an ecumenical council is scandalous. At least it should be.

I find this comment "shocking", since there are plenty of statements made on Pray Tell which are about dissenting from doctrines of the Church, but they often go unchecked and unadmonished by the editorial staff.  My comment is "shocking" because, as Fr. Anthony has said (on other occasions when I have brought up this unequal reception such comments receive) I am someone who is opposed to the dissenting and disobedient attitude portrayed by certain commentors.  In other words, as someone calling for assent, it is a "shock" to make a statement questioning the Ordinary Form in any way.

I think I need to defend myself and my question.  I am not questioning the Council, nor am I questioning the reform prescribed by the Council as found in Sac. Conc.  However, I am questioning certain facets of the liturgy produced by the Consilium (that is, the group assembled to carry out the liturgical reform).  Yes, their final decisions and the liturgy they produced was approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Paul VI.  But just because he approved them does not mean they were consonant or reconcilable with the liturgical reform as prescribed in the Council documents.  Is it true that "virtually every single bishop" approved the decisions of Consilium?  I thought only the Pope did.  What the bishops approved was the document Sac. Conc. in 1963, not the decisions of the Consilium nor the liturgy they produced in 1969.

I do not know if I can say, with Fr. Anthony, that "the Consilium followed the general principles of Sac. Conc. without a doubt."  There are certain principles and even decrees of Sac. Conc. that they did not uphold very well, and there are others that they adhered to, even to the point of going beyond them.  (I also question the process by which other changes with took place in the Ordinary Form after 1969 — like the rapid proliferation of Communion under both kinds to situations not envisioned by the Council Fathers and expressly forbidden by Rome at the time — but that is for another time.)

My overall question is: must the Ordinary Form (as it exists in the books) be accepted as an/the "accurate" interpretation of the principles and decrees on liturgical reform found in Sac. Conc., simply because Pope Paul VI approved it? (Again, I am not calling into question its validity or licitness.)

And if this "chipping away at lawful reform as prescribed by an ecumenical council is [or should be] scandalous", shouldn't the chipping away at other things said by the same council be decried as scandalous and shocking on Pray Tell as well?

So that's where I am for now.  The trailing part of this post of this will be posted as a comment on Pray Tell, where they don't need to hear all this backstory.

Vatican II and the Laity

I'm giving a brief (10-15 minute) talk to a group of Catholic graduate students at Princeton University this Thursday evening from 6pm to 8pm (the evening begins with a simple meal, followed by my talk, followed by discussion and some Q&A) on "Participation in the Liturgy and Beyond".  The outline of the talk is:

1. Promotion and Reform
1. Vatican II addressed liturgical instruction before it addressed liturgical reform
2. Excerpts from Sacrosanctum Concilium 9-11
2. How do we participate in the Mass?
1. Through baptism, we have the right and duty to participate
2. True participation is only possible through baptism
3. Three degrees of participation
1. Internal:  perception of the sacred mysteries (cf. De Musica Sacra 22, Musicam Sacram 15)
2. External:  manifesting internal participation (cf. De Musica Sacra 22, Musicam Sacram 15)
3. Sacramental:  receiving Holy Communion (cf. De Musica Sacra 22, Musicam Sacram 23)
4. There is a need for instruction before the faithful can achieve intelligent and active participation in the Mass (cf. De Musica Sacra 22)
4. Joining ourselves to Christ, and our sacrifices to Christ's
1. Sacrosanctum Concilium 48
2. Lumen Gentium 11, 34
3. Presbyterorum Ordinis 2, 5
4. When?  Collect, Prayer of the Faithful, Offertory, Consecration, etc.
3. How do we participate outside of Mass?
1. Dismissal = Mission = Sending
2. What are we sent out to do?
1. Gospel of John has several "As the Father... so the Son..."
2. Two of these extend to us:
1. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.  Abide in my love. (John 15:9)
2. Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. (John 20:21)
3. Sent for what?
1. To save the world (cf. John 3:17)
2. To utter the words of God (cf. John 3:34)
3. To do the will of the Father (cf. John 6:38)
4. To lose nothing of all that He has given us (cf. John 6:39)
5. To teach the Father's commandments (cf. John 7:16)
6. To be a sign of unity (cf. John 17:20-21)
4. The Apostolate of the Laity
1. Apostolate = apostolic activity = mission
1. Jesus was the Father's "apostle"
2. Jesus chose His own apostles
3. The whole Church shares in the work of the apostles ("apostolate")
4. The laity have a share in the apostolate
2. Pope Pius XII
1. Address to 2nd World Congress of the Lay Apostolate (1957)
3. Vatican II
1. Lumen Gentium 33-42 (1964)
2. Apostolicam Actuositatem (1965)
4. John Paul II
1. Christifideles Laici (1988)

The first half is about liturgical participation, and the second half is about what liturgical participation should move us to do:  participate in the lay apostolate in the world.  What does the Church say about the lay apostolate?

• The "consecration of the world" is "essentially the work of the laity." (Pius XII)
• "Giving the world ... a Christian form and structure [is] the greatest task of the apostolate of the Catholic laity." (Pius XII)
• The lay apostolate "must always remain within the limits of orthodoxy and must not oppose itself to the legitimate prescriptions of competent authorities." (Pius XII)
• The laity "exercise the apostolate in fact by their activity directed to the evangelization and sanctification of men and to the penetrating and perfecting of the temporal order through the spirit of the Gospel." (Vatican II)
• The "success of the lay apostolate depends on the laity's living union with Christ [which] is nourished by spiritual aids which are common to all the faithful, especially active participation in the sacred liturgy." (Vatican II)
• In both the spiritual and temporal orders, "the layman, being simultaneously a believer and a citizen, should be continuously led by the same conscience." (Vatican II)
• The lay apostolate "does not consist only in the witness of one's way of life; a true apostle looks for opportunities to announce Christ by words addressed either to non-believers with a view of leading them to faith, or to the faithful with a view to instruction, strengthening, and encouraging them to a more fervent life." (Vatican II)
• "The laity must take up the renewal of the temporal order as their own special obligation." (Vatican II)
• The best exercise of the apostolate of the laity is found in organizations which have as their immediate aim "the evangelization and sanctification of men and the formation of a Christian conscience," which "cooperat[e] with the hierarchy" while maintaining "responsibility for the direction of these organizations," in which the laity "act together in the manner of an organic body," and in which "the laity function under the higher direction of the hierarchy." (Vatican II)

Thoughts on liturgical catechesis and reform

The following excerpts come from an email conversation with a "QV", a Catholic from Texas.  Text in blue is from QV.  This post is kind of long, but I think it's well worth reading (and not only because I wrote it).

---

What really were the 'needs of modern man' that were used as a foundational principle in Sacrosanctum Concilium for advocating the Liturgical Reforms after Vatican II? What made 20th Century Man so different from our ancestors?

Wow, that's a good question (and one which my books do not even begin to address, since they are not about the liturgical reform, per se, but about the reformed liturgy). I will think about it and try to provide some possible answers.

20th century man, at least in first- and second-world countries, has a lot of advantages (and disadvantages) that our ancestors did not have. The technological revolution has changed our way of looking at things. We have the ability to be entertained 24/7: TV, TiVo, OnDemand, pay-per-view, etc. We can be "busy" without being mentally engaged. Mystery has given way to explicitness, silence has given way to noise. All this makes the older liturgy seem immediately unattractive.

I agree with you that the problem was not necessarily the liturgy but our ability to participate in it, our understanding of what sort of participation the liturgy requires. The liturgy requires silence, prayer, attention, recollection, but it does also require verbal responses, gestures and postures. We cannot worship God only in motionless silence, as that denies our bodies their role in true worship.

It seems to me that our culture fosters short attention spans, a desire to be entertained, a desire to be "doing something". Perhaps modern man needs more assistance than his predecessors to be receptive to the traditional form of liturgy.

To me, this means modern man needs to be educated (catechized) better. The "modern" liturgical reform, in its earlier stages (in the 19th century), was more about reforming the liturgical attitude of the people than it was about reforming the liturgy; it was about liturgical catechesis before it was about liturgical changes.

I agree with you completely when you said "We can be 'busy' without being mentally engaged. Mystery has given way to explicitness, silence has given way to noise." However, the Traditional Mass addresses those very shortcomings in our culture — it clearly provides a spiritual "oasis"...

I agree that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass addresses those shortcomings and is a spiritual oasis... but only if a person knows he is thirsty will he approach to drink. Part of the crisis we face today is that "thirst" has been falsely quenched, and the feeling of "thirst" has been described instead as something else. It's like calling evil good and good evil.

I think you are right on the money when you say "Perhaps modern man needs more assistance than his predecessors to be receptive to the traditional form of liturgy." I do think that the Council Fathers were definitely led by the Holy Spirit in Sancrosanctum Concilium paragraph 19 when they wrote: "With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy...."

I agree:

But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain. Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects. (SC 11)

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; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work. Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy. (SC 14)

It is no accident that in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the section titled "The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation" comes before "The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy".

It seems to me that the reforms to the Liturgy tried to address the "active participation" aspect (albeit wrongly, in my opinion), but nobody did anything to address the "liturgical instruction of the faithful".

Yes, I agree that the "reform" issue was addressed but the "catechesis" issue was not addressed very well at all.  I've made that same statement many times:

1. "The Council recognized the need for both liturgical catechesis and liturgical reform. Not one or the other, but both. (And I would argue that the Council documents expected a catechesis on the liturgy  as it was in 1962, which would mean the Council did not expect a complete re-write of the Missal thus rendering the theological liturgical catechesis of the 1962 Missal null and void!)"
2. "Comprehension is a major factor -- that's why Vatican  II stressed the need for liturgical catechesis of the faithful alongside  liturgical reform -- but it is often overlooked."
3. "Vatican II called for full, conscious, active participation by the faithful at Mass first and foremost through proper catechesis by their priests!"
4. "The Second Vatican Council called for catechesis  (education, formation) above all else in liturgical matters. Re-read Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 14 and see how it envisioned that 'full, conscious, active participation' would be brought about."
5. "The Council called for liturgical catechesis  above all, before it mentioned its few changes to the liturgy. (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 14) And one wonders if the desired understanding of the Mass was even accomplished."
6. "One of my biggest grievances is the liturgical catechesis  called for, and echoed numerous times since then, is still wanting. Instead of catechesis, things are dumbed down; instead of catechesis, numerous abuses are introduced (because people just don't know any better!); instead of catechesis, the things that need explaining are omitted and replaced with banality."
7. "I would say that, rather than reform being de facto promotion, promotion is de facto reform, because promotion of the liturgy (meaning better catechesis  for the laity and the clergy) would lead to a more zealous and devout and informed and reverent celebration of the Mass, which would yield greater fruit in greater abundance. This is not to say that a reform-by-promotion would require no changes, but that fewer changes (and less dramatic ones at that) would be necessary."
8. "What is needed is a liturgical movement which does two things: 1) reads Vatican II in light of the liturgical tradition of the Church, one of organic development rather than redesign-by-committee, and 2) emphasizes liturgical catechesis as a necessary precursor to any liturgical reform."

My position can be summed up with these five words of mine:

"CATECHESIS IS THE BEST REFORM"

Also, I opined that "Bishops expected that the reform (and specifically the introduction of the vernacular) would make catechesis less necessary" in a thread with you. Don't have any proof, just a hunch. Maybe replace "Bishops" with "the Consilium".

Vatican II Series - Part II - Notes

Session 2 – Word and Sacrament

• Word (Dei Verbum) and Sacrament (Sacrosanctum Concilium)
• Word
• Nov 18, 1965 – voted 2344 to 6
• Luther – Sola Scriptura vs. Tradition; accessibility of the Word
• Newman – Development of Doctrine
• Catholic Biblical Scholarship
• Expanded view of revelation: what is revelation
• What is revelation?
• DV 2 – God’s own sharing of His life with us, God’s self-communication to us
• DV 8 – Revelation is complete, but our understanding of it grows
• What is the relationship between Scripture and Tradition?
• Trent: Scripture and Tradition exist together
• Vatican I: Ditto
• DV 9 – Close connection between the two; “it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.”
• DV 9 – Magisterium is not above the Word of God, but serves it, it teaches only what has been handed on
• Scripture Scholarship
• DV 12 – Scholarship should search out the intention of the sacred writers, paying attention to the literary forms
• Scripture in the life of the Church
• Preaching – homilies should deal with the Scripture heard (although not exclusively)
• Teaching (theological studies)
• Study (easy access to all) – Bible Study
• Translation
• Questions
• Vatican II and the “lost gospels”, etc.
• Scripture is part of Tradition, right?
• Personal notes
• No mention of DV 11 regarding the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture
• Sacrament
• December 12, 1963 – 2174 to 4
• Context: Luther, abuses, Trent
• “Hearing” Mass
• Liturgical Movement of the 1920’s (actually started earlier)
• Changes by the Popes throughout history
• Especially in the decades before Vatican II
• Source and Summit
• SC 10 – Summit of the Church’s activity, font from which her power flows
• SC 7 – Various modes of Christ’s presence in the liturgy
• Priest, Eucharist, word, prayer
• (Also in the Prayer of the Faithful – that is, in the poor, weak, wounded, ill, etc.)
• Full, Conscious, and Active Participation
• SC 14 – Participation in the Mass is the right of every Catholic by baptism
• Vernacular
• SC 36 – Latin remains in use, but vernacular is permitted
• Sacred Art and Architecture
• Place of tabernacle
• Statues, etc.
• Implementation of Vatican II
• The 1970 Missal of Pope Paul VI
• Bishops Conferences
• Understanding of the Church (1965-1975)

Q&A on the Extraordinary Form of the Liturgy

(First, I'd like to apologize to the gentleman from the CMAA, from Old Bridge / South Amboy, whose name I had forgotten by the end of our conversation. He is starting up a schola and brought along a few of the members.)

The Q&A was rather decent. The monsignor who led the discussion admitted, rather bluntly, that the liturgy of the Catholic Church in the U.S. went from "poorly done in Latin" to "poorly done in English" because of the reforms of Vatican II.

Some interesting comments included a concern for the Precious Blood being spilled (since a woman said she often sees a carpet stain where the EMHCs with the chalice are standing) and a question about use of a Communion rail and restricting Communion to one species. I learned that it is a diocese-wide "mandate" to offer Communion under both kinds at every Mass; quite surprising, given the sordid history of Communnion under both kinds in the U.S.

I mentioned the CMAA (http://www.musicasacra.com/) and the new instructional DVD on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass by the Priestly Society of St. Peter (http://www.fsspdvd.com/) as resources for musicians and priests and seminarians who are interested in the the traditional music and liturgy of the Church.

Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy called for liturgical reform, it is true, but it also called for better liturgical formation and catechesis for clergy and laity alike. Let's pray for that part to get implemented in the coming years!

Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 14-20

Here is the text, my commentary, my questions, and questions from discussion (none yet) on Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 14-20 from the Catholic Answer Forum study I'm leading.

Before reading the text, you should check out this post (and probably also the linked article).

SC 14 is "the big one". You'll see why when you read the text and my commentary.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 11-13

Here is the text, my commentary, my questions, and questions from discussion (none yet) on Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 11-13 from the Catholic Answer Forum study I'm leading.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 8-10

Here is the text, my commentary, my questions, and questions from discussion on Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 8-10 from the Catholic Answer Forum study I'm leading.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 5-7

Here is the text, my commentary, my questions, and questions from discussion on Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 5-7 from the Catholic Answer Forum study I'm leading.

Liturgy: How do the faithful take part in the Sacrifice of the Eucharist?

(This is jumping the gun a bit, since Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn't mention this until article 48, but I think it's worth sharing anyway!)

Vatican II teaches that all the faithful, who have the baptismal priesthood, can offer Jesus to the Father and unite themselves to Jesus, the perfect sacrifice; furthermore, pastors need to teach their flock this great mystery.

"The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this 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. They should be instructed by God's word and be nourished at the table of the Lord's body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves..." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 48)

"Thus the Eucharistic Action, over which the priest presides, is the very heart of the congregation. So priests must instruct their people to offer to God the Father the Divine Victim in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to join to it the offering of their own lives." (Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 5)

The mystery was articulated at length by Pope Pius XII in his masterpiece encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei (from 1947, a good 15 years before the Council). If you ever have the time, I strongly suggest reading it! Let me give you a lengthy excerpt (from nn. 84-93) which I believe will help to bear fruit in your prayers, most especially those which you offer at Mass.

Oh, but first, a bit of terminology will help here. A sacrifice has two parts: the death of the victim and the offering of the victim. The death is often called immolation (from the Latin immolare which means "to sacrifice"), and this is achieved in the Mass with the words of Consecration ("This is my Body", "This is my Blood"). The offering of the victim is often called oblation (from the Latin oblata, a form of offerre, which means "to offer"). The priest, and he alone by virtue of his ordination, is the minister of the immolation; but as Mediator Dei explains, all of the faithful share in the oblation.

Now onto the quote:

(84) [W]e deem it necessary to recall that the priest acts for the people only because he represents Jesus Christ, who is Head of all His members and offers Himself in their stead. ...

(85) However, it must also be said that the faithful do offer the divine Victim, though in a different sense. ...

(86) "Not only," says Innocent III of immortal memory, "do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention." We are happy to recall one of St. Robert Bellarmine's many statements on this subject. "The sacrifice," he says "is principally offered in the person of Christ. Thus the oblation that follows the consecration is a sort of attestation that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it along with Him."

(87) Moreover, the rites and prayers of the eucharistic sacrifice signify and show no less clearly that the oblation of the Victim is made by the priests in company with the people. For not only does the sacred minister, after the oblation of the bread and wine when he turns to the people, say the significant prayer: "Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty;" but also the prayers by which the divine Victim is offered to God are generally expressed in the plural number: and in these it is indicated more than once that the people also participate in this august sacrifice inasmuch as they offer the same. ...

(88) Nor is it to be wondered at, that the faithful should be raised to this dignity. ... [T]hey participate, according to their condition, in the priesthood of Christ.

(89) It is fitting, then, that the Christian people should also desire to know in what sense they are said in the canon of the Mass to offer up the sacrifice. ...

(90) First of all the more extrinsic explanations are these: it frequently happens that the faithful assisting at Mass join their prayers alternately with those of the priest, and sometimes - a more frequent occurrence in ancient times - they offer to the ministers at the altar bread and wine to be changed into the body and blood of Christ, and, finally, by their alms they get the priest to offer the divine victim for their intentions.

(91) But there is also a more profound reason why all Christians, especially those who are present at Mass, are said to offer the sacrifice.

(92) In this most important subject it is necessary, in order to avoid giving rise to a dangerous error, that we define the exact meaning of the word "offer." The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. But it is because the priest places the divine victim upon the altar that he offers it to God the Father as an oblation for the glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the good of the whole Church. Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship.

(93) Now it is clear that the faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ. But the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father. It is obviously necessary that the external sacrificial rite should, of its very nature, signify the internal worship of the heart. Now the sacrifice of the New Law signifies that supreme worship by which the principal Offerer himself, who is Christ, and, in union with Him and through Him, all the members of the Mystical Body pay God the honor and reverence that are due to Him.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 1-4

Here is the text, my commentary, my questions, and questions from discussion on Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 1-4 from the Catholic Answer Forum study I'm leading.

Liturgy: Study Sacrosanctum Concilium at Catholic Answers Forum

At the Catholic Answers Forum (CAF), I've started a thread studying Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. As I've mentioned before on my blog, the Pope has invited the whole Church to re-visit this first document of the Second Vatican Council to grow in our understanding of this Most Blessed Sacrament, the Holy Eucharist. This document also speaks about the direction of the liturgical reformation that the Church was preparing to undertake.

If you would like to read along with us -- I'm posting the document, piece-by-piece, with commentary and questions -- feel free! The thread is here.

If you want to contribute questions or answers, you'll need to register with CAF (painless, really) and then register as a "Book Club" member (which might take a day or two to be approved). But anyone can read along without registering.

The link between St. Paul and the Pope's call to revisit the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

At the close of the International Eucharistic Congress, the Pope called the Church (individually and in groups) to revisit Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

Today (or last night, starting with vespers) marks the beginning of the Pauline year, celebrating the 2000th anniversary of his birth.

And there's a link between them.

St. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, reminded them of the traditions he had handed onto them, which he had received from the Lord. (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2,23). He gives them a reminder of the liturgical tradition (as it were) of the universal Church of which the church in Corinth is a member. The reason he felt urged to do so was because the celebration of the Eucharist was falling prey to abuses, and was becoming an occasion of division and sacrilege! (cf. 1 Cor. 11:18ff)

Sacrosanctum Concilium, which described the ways in which the Roman liturgy should be reformed and revised, speaks highly of the tradition the Church has received from the Apostles:

4. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.

23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

106. By a tradition handed down from the apostles which took its origin from the very day of Christ's resurrection, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery every eighth day; with good reason this, then, bears the name of the Lord's day or Sunday. For on this day Christ's faithful are bound to come together into one place so that; by hearing the word of God and taking part in the Eucharist, they may call to mind the Passion, the Resurrection and the glorification of the Lord Jesus, and may thank God who "has begotten them again, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto a living hope" (1 Pet. 1:3). ...

107. The liturgical year is to be revised so that the traditional customs and discipline of the sacred seasons shall be preserved or restored to suit the conditions of modern times; their specific character is to be retained, so that they duly nourish the piety of the faithful who celebrate the mysteries of Christian redemption, and above all the paschal mystery. ...

111. The saints have been traditionally honored in the Church and their authentic relics and images held in veneration. ...

112. The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy. ...

120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things. But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.

Now, there has been no little debate over the past 40 years (since the publication of that Constitution) about the "organic" nature of the reform of the Roman Rite that followed the Second Vatican Council. Pope Paul VI hoped that the 1969 reform of the Roman Rite would "[put] an end to uncertainties, to discussions, to arbitrary abuses." But it appears that was not the case.

Many changes were introduced that were never mentioned in the Constitution. Some practices were illegally introduced and legalized (via indult in some occasions) after the fact. Elements traditional to the Roman Rite (such as Latin, chant, and worship ad orientem) were silently lost. And abuses crept in; some abuses barged in.

Consider the words of the late Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003):

10. In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation.

It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against "formalism" has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the "forms" chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate.

52. ... I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church.

This letter was followed by the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, one of the documents against liturgical abuses which, in the words of Bishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, "unfortunately have remained a dead letter, forgotten in libraries full of dust, or even worse, thrown into the waste basket."

The cry of the Church against these liturgical abuses has been going up for many years:

• 2007: Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis: nn. 3, 54
• 2004: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum
• 2003: Pope John Paul II, Spiritus et Sponsa: n. 15
• 1997: Congregation for the Clergy, Ecclesia de Mysterio: n. 4; Art. 6, n. 2
• 1993: Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Applications of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism: n. 6
• 1988: Pope John Paul II, Vicesimus Quintus Annus: n. 13
• 1988: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Paschale Solemnitatis: nn. 49, 78
• 1980: Pope John Paul II, Inaestimabile Donum: preface; nn. 1, 4, 5
• 1976: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inter Insigniores: n. 4
• 1973: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mysterium Ecclesiae: n. 6

Even before the Council, Pope Pius warned against abuses (and doctrinal errors creeping in because of them) in his encyclical Mediator Dei (in 1947).

The Pope liberated the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (also called the "Gregorian Rite"). He celebrated Mass ad orientem (well, ad Dominum, anyway!) and has re-introduced the placement of candles and crucifix on the altar. He has been distributing Communion to people on the tongue as they kneel recently (including today). He has restored the organic development of the Papal pallium (and has been restoring to use many traditional vestments and liturgical objects). There is a call from the Pope to revisit the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, to re-examine that tradition which was handed down to us through the centuries by the Church, by Her Apostles, and ultimately by the Lord himself. He hinted at this two and a half years ago, speaking to the Roman Curia at Christmas. The Pope is trying to tell us something. Perhaps it is time to recall the whole of our Catholic identity.

Let us pray for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to settle upon the Church and Her leaders and all the faithful, that we might again receive the sacred tradition and pass it on uncorrupted to the future of the Church.

Liturgy and the Eucharist: Pope invites study of Sacrosanctum Concilium

Update: Zenit has posted his complete homily.

This year marks the 45th anniversary of the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. This will fall within the Pauline year (celebrating the 2000th anniversary of the birth of St. Paul the Apostle).

At the just-concluded International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec, the Holy Father gave a homily from Rome. Here is what Zenit is reporting (emphasis added):

In his address, given in French and English, the Holy Father said, "'The Mystery of Faith': this we proclaim at every Mass. I would like everyone to make a commitment to study this great mystery, especially by revisiting and exploring, individually and in groups, the Council's text on the liturgy, 'Sacrosanctum Concilium,' so as to bear witness courageously to the mystery."

The Pontiff affirmed that such study would help each person "arrive at a better grasp of the meaning of every aspect of the Eucharist, understanding its depth and living it with greater intensity."

"Every sentence, every gesture has its own meaning and conceals a mystery," Benedict XVI continued. "I sincerely hope that this Congress will serve as an appeal to all the faithful to make a similar commitment to a renewal of Eucharistic catechesis, so that they themselves will gain a genuine Eucharistic awareness and will in turn teach children and young people to recognize the central mystery of faith and build their lives around it.

"I urge priests especially to give due honor to the Eucharistic rite, and I ask all the faithful to respect the role of each individual, both priest and lay, in the Eucharistic action. The liturgy does not belong to us: It is the Church's treasure."

I'll find a complete text of his homily soon. In the mean time, he has given us plenty of food for thought. He is inviting all the faithful to revisit and explore Sacrosanctum Concilium to better understand and witness to the Eucharistic mystery. I'm going to see (through the proper channels, of course) if there's any interest at my parish in organizing a study group (akin to a Bible study group) for this document for the Fall. (It might have to complete with the Pauline year...)

I think I'll do a blog study of Sacrosanctum Concilium sometime in the near future.

Modern Liturgical Reform: The Good and the Bad

[I might submit this post -- slightly edited -- to the Adoremus Bulletin.]

I've read a fair number of books about the reform of the Roman Rite that took place in the 20th century. Most of the reform (or at least, most of what I read about) centered around Vatican II and its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (henceforth SC). Admittedly, there was liturgical reform in the 1900's before then: Holy Week was revised by Pope Pius XII, and Pope Bl. John XXIII made a minor revision to the Good Friday prayer for Jews and added St. Joseph's name to the Canon. However, the reform that occurred from 1963 through 1969 (and continuing afterward) is what I've read about the most.

The books I've read that deal with this matter are "Reform of the Reform?" by Fr. Thomas A. Kocik, "Reform of the Roman Liturgy" by Msgr. Klaus Gamber, "Spirit of the Liturgy" by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and "Looking at the Liturgy" by Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P. I have (but have not yet read) "The Organic Development of the Liturgy" by Fr. Alcuin Reid.

So this post is about my impression of the modern liturgical reform, specifically that which followed the promulgation of SC and resulted in the "modern Roman Rite", the "Novus Ordo Missae", the "Pauline Missal", the "Mass of Paul VI"... which we know today as the "Ordinary Form" or "Ordinary Expression", from the Latin used in Summorum Pontificum Art. 1: ordinaria expressio. I will describe (in my estimation) three good things and three bad things about this reform. Now, I will state up front that, as I have pointed out before, not all the changes that took place were mentioned in SC, so I will qualify my statements when I think it is necessary to avoid giving the wrong impression. I will also make suggestions which I consider to be organically inspired, growing "from forms already existing". [SC 23]

Good Thing #1 - Certain elements of the liturgy that had fallen out of use have been restored. [SC 50]

I am speaking specifically of the Prayer of the Faithful (also known as the General Intercessions) [SC 54], the Responsorial Psalm [MR 12], and the sign of peace. The homily was also incorporated as "part of the liturgy itself" [SC 52].

The Prayer of the Faithful. This is a genuine means of "full, conscious, and active participation" [SC 14] and a genuine exercise of the priesthood of the faithful: a way of uniting the prayers of the community to the prayer of the priest during his action of the Mass. By "genuine" I mean it is not a fabricated nor extraordinary need being filled by the faithful, but part and parcel of what constitutes our baptismal participation in the Mass [GIRM 69]. Since the Mass can be seen as one long prayer (in many parts), the prayers offered during the General Intercession should not be seen as an interruption or an after-thought or an "aside". Rather, we should recognize these prayers -- by which the faithful are interceding "for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world" [SC 53] -- as being presented to God the Father along with the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. In other words, the intercessions are not over and done with when the priest gives his concluding line of prayer, but are now themselves like incense rising to God, now that they have been stated by His Church.

However, I think there is a danger of too much creative license with the Prayer of the Faithful. I think that the model of this prayer should be the Good Friday intercessions: the purpose of the prayer is announced, silent prayer follows, the intention itself is announced, the people affirm it as their own. A few things are accomplished here: first, the Good Friday intercessions won't seem so different (except for their greater solemnity and constancy); second, because there is a brief time of silent prayer for each intention in addition to the stated intention, there is increased "ownership" of these intentions by the faithful, so that it becomes not only the prayer of the parish but their prayer too; and third, the intercessions remain intercessory in nature. That third one is important, because this time is not meant for offering prayers of thanksgiving or adoration or penitence, but supplication; they are "petitions offered up for various needs throughout the world". [EP 16] These intercessions "are to be prepared and written out beforehand and in a form consistent with the genre of the prayer" [LI 3]. This means intentions should not be called out by people in the pews.

The Responsorial Psalm. St. Augustine and Pope St. Leo the Great made reference to this on occasion in their sermons and writings (according to Pope Paul VI), and it is another means of participation, by which we pray a psalm as the response of the Church to the First Reading. Perhaps this is unknown to most Catholics: it's not called "responsorial" because the faithful respond to each set of verses with a "response", but because it is, as a whole, a response to the First Reading! I don't know how many of the laity regularly pray the Liturgy of the Hours or otherwise get around to praying the Psalms; the Mass provides this opportunity, and we should make the most of it.

However, I would like to see the Gradual incorporated as well! Perhaps a "common ground" could be found, whereby the Responsorial Psalm is sung by everyone in an antiphonal setting; that is, the antiphon, the verses all together, and the antiphon again. This does not seem to be precluded by the current GIRM. The choir would sing the antiphons on their own (which would have a more complex melody); then they would sing the first half of a verse (or pair of verses) and the congregation would complete the verse (or pair of verses), and so on, until the antiphon is reached, which would be sung by the choir alone. Standard psalm tones could be incorporated for the verses, of course. The only real trick to this, though, is that the faithful would need to know the words of the psalm to be sung, but this does not seem insurmountable. It might cost a bit in printing, but I think the liturgical and spiritual riches would outweigh the cost! I'm not thrilled by a lot of modern Responsorial Psalm settings that are overly (and overtly) repetitious as if to say to the faithful "this is all you're going to say, so say it a lot!" I am referring to "refrains" that simply say the same thing two or three times.

The Sign of Peace. This gesture (known also as the kiss of peace or the pax) is present in the Divine Liturgies of the East, and is even present in Solemn High Masses in the Extraordinary Form. It is somewhat stylized in the older liturgies. This act is attested to in Scripture by Paul many times, but also by Jesus who tells us to make peace with our brother before offering a gift at the altar. It reconnects us with our brethren and reminds us that our relationship with God, especially during Mass, is not a private one. If we are comfortable being "surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses" [Heb 12:1] as we unite our spiritual sacrifices to the one offered by our priests, we must also be comfortable -- and at peace -- with so great a crowd of imperfect witnesses (of which we are all members) standing around us.

However, while the concept is fine, the execution leaves much to be desired. As Matthew 5:23-24 informs us, such an act should be done before the offering of gifts. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom places this act just before the recitation of the Creed; the people are one in Trinitarian love and one in Trinitarian faith. Pope Benedict XVI mentioned the possibility of moving the Sign of Peace in his post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (see n. 49 and footnote 150). The pax should also be given with greater reverence (it is the peace of Christ you are offering to one another, not the peace of men) and self-restraint; priests should not leave the sanctuary except with good reason on special occasions [GIRM 154], and there's no real need for someone to see just how many he can share the sign of peace with, nor go out of his way to give it.

The Homily. Making homilies mandatory on Sundays and other holy days of obligation [SC 52] was a superb idea and was, in fact, a realization of what the Council of Trent had prescribed. [Session 22, chapter 8]

However, as Pope Benedict XVI said in Sacramentum Caritatis n. 46, "Given the importance of the word of God, the quality of homilies needs to be improved." I find it ironic that in the Extraordinary Form, where the sermon is not part of the liturgy, the priest will often remove his maniple and/or chasuble and speak profoundly Catholic words of instruction, while in the Ordinary form, where the homily is part of the liturgy, some priests remain in full vestments but miss the mark doctrinally, exegetically, and pastorally. Even worse is the delegation of the homily to the non-ordained, which the Church rightly calls an abuse. [RS 64-66] The homily is not just an exegesis of Scripture; through it, "the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text" [SC 52] and can even provide liturgical catechesis! [GIRM 13]

Good Thing #2 - A renewed call for participation in the Mass by the faithful. [SC 14]

Vatican II repeated the call for true participation that Popes Pius X, XI, and XII had raised before. This actuosa participatio is not just external, but internal as well. It is not limited to making acclamations, responses, and gestures, and assuming postures; it requires spiritual participation and a prayerful disposition. It reaches its culmination when Holy Communion can be received. Such participation existed before Vatican II, even without lay readers and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and female altar servers and a choir next to the altar. It existed even when the Mass was chanted in Latin! However, although it existed, it was not always taken advantage of. Vatican II sought to reinvigorate the faithful by means of encouraging this active participation. If successful, the faithful would be united ever more closely to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

However, along with this participation (and indeed preceding it) was supposed to be the liturgical instruction of the faithful by their pastors. [SC 14, 19] It would appear such catechesis never took place in many parts of the Church; in some places it might even appear to have been replaced by unbridled innovations and fabrications of further means of involving the faithful without ever explaining the meaning of the participation proper to them. The trend to use (and overuse) lay ministers during the Mass, although it followed Vatican II, was not sanctioned by it. The vocation of the laity has always been to work toward the sanctification of the secular world; ministering in the Mass is the vocation of the clergy.

Good Thing #3 - It introduced the vernacular into the Mass. [SC 36]

The use of the vernacular in some places of the Mass seems appropriate to me, as it did to the Council Fathers. The General Intercessions are one place where this seems acceptable, since they are the petitions of the local parish (albeit on behalf of the whole Church). Reading Scripture in the vernacular can be helpful, provided it doesn't eliminate the ability to chant the readings, and the translation is (of course) an accurate one. I would even consider the use of the vernacular for the Collect and Post-Communion prayers, although I would prefer to keep the Super Oblata and the Preface of the Eucharistic Prayer in Latin, in order to create a continuous block of Latin prayer from the Orate, fratres through to the reception of Communion! I can accept this seeming inconsistent, though, to have two proper prayers in the vernacular and the others in Latin; it may not be the best solution.

However, we have had too much of a good thing. The vernacular has bullied Latin out of the Mass, and these vernacular translations are not always accurate. This leads to a concern that people praying the Mass in one language might be saying a substantially different thing from people praying the Mass in another language. It also impedes what many people would consider to be their active participation when they are in a foreign land. If an English-speaking Catholic with no knowledge of Tagalog is present at a Mass being celebrated in Tagalog, they very well might say the responses (if they can keep track of their place in the Mass) in English, and perhaps in a low voice. This is clearly inferior to an external participation whereby they can say the responses in unison with the rest of the congregation, in one clear voice. If Latin were retained (or reintroduced, as the case may be) for the Ordinary of the Mass, this universal participation would be more clearly manifested. As for the argument of "I don't know Latin", the Church is not asking us to know Latin, but merely to know the responses and a few common chants. If you know the place of these chants in the liturgy, and you know their vernacular translation, you know what they mean, and the only obstacle is the pronunciation of the Latin.

Bad Thing #1 - The theological reform that accompanied it.

The alteration of the teachings of the Church was, of course, was never the intent of the Council Fathers. Pope Bl. John XXIII said in his address at the opening of Vatican II that the purpose of the council was "to transmit [the whole of Catholic doctrine] in all its purity, undiluted, undistorted"; he continued to say that the Council was not convened "to discuss certain fundamentals of Catholic doctrine, or to restate in greater detail the traditional teaching of the Fathers and of early and more recent theologians". He called the Council for the purpose that "this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms. For this deposit of faith, or truths which are contained in our time-honored teaching is one thing; the manner in which these truths are set forth (with their meaning preserved intact) is something else."

And yet, with every altar rail torn out, with every word of Latin purged, with every altar turned around, and with every tabernacle hidden from sight, the truth of that old adage was proven again and again: lex orandi lex credendi: the law of prayer is the law of belief. With a variety of texts for the priest to use, we can conceivably never again use the Confiteor, and thus fail to invoke the Communion of Saints which we claim to believe in the Creed. The priest might never again use the Roman Canon, opting instead for Eucharistic Prayer II, the shortest one, which absolutely pales in comparison. The texts provided alongside the traditional ones rarely match them in theological richness. In the United States, there's even an entirely new Collect provided, found no where in the Latin Missal!

Even when the Ordinary Form is celebrated in a "traditional" manner -- using the Confiteor and Kyrie, using the Roman Canon, standing ad orientem, and chanting the Ordinary and Propers in Latin -- it does not present the faith with equal precision and clarity to the Extraordinary Form. The priest no longer stands at the steps and asks God for mercy and forgiveness (and the people likewise) before approaching the altar. The prayers have been "neutered" of certain themes. The word "soul" is conspicuously missing from the Mass for All Souls on November 2nd, and the Collect no longer prays for the faithful departed but for us.

The new Lectionary, while providing an abundance of Scripture, has been neutered as well. The important passage from 1 Corinthians where St. Paul warns the faithful about unworthily receiving Holy Communion (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29) has been excised from the readings for Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi. With all the Scripture added to the Mass, what with multiple-year cycles and an additional reading on solemnities, why did the Scripture previously proclaimed at (and contained in) the Mass have to suffer loss?

Why are we keeping the faith from the faithful?

Bad Thing #2 - The extent to which the reform was carried out.

Many changes to the liturgy that have occurred since Vatican II have laid claim to the Council's "spirit" while ferociously disregarding its "body". So many Catholics think these changes were initiated and supported by Vatican II, but the documents tell a rather different story. Pope Benedict, in his 2005 Christmas address to the Curia, contrasted the false "hermeneutic of discontinuity", which sees the Council documents as compromises that need to be courageously overcome to discover their true intentions, with the "hermeneutic of reform" which exists within the tradition and life of the Church and therefore interprets the documents of the Council within that living tradition, not as a departure from it.

These changes have actually hindered Sacrosanctum Concilium from being carried out:
for one thing, Latin and Gregorian chant are missing from most parishes; in the United States, they've been replaced by a flawed vernacular translation and music in any other conceivable style. The Council did not envision this catastrophe, [SC 36, 116] but sadly, Pope Paul VI conceded that the revised liturgy would cause us to "lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant" and give the vernacular language the primacy. [General Audience, Nov. 26, 1969] His gift to the bishops of the Church in 1974, Jubilate Deo, a handbook of chants in Latin representing the minimum repertoire a parish should know, fell through the cracks, it seems.

Other innovations, such as the abundance of lay ministers and the resurfacing of Communion in the hand, have blurred the line between the ordained and non-ordained. Communion in the hand reappeared as an abuse, and in the end, despite acknowledging that the universal norm is receiving on the tongue, an indult was allowed to permit reception in the hand where the illegal practice prevailed, a loophole that was certainly abused in the following years.

The composition of numerous new texts -- a dozen Eucharistic prayers, multiple Penitential Rites, and the Memorial Acclamation in the middle of the Eucharistic Prayer -- was not called for, and one wonders if "the good of the Church genuinely and certainly require[d] them". [SC 23] Along with this came a general sense of creativity and improvisation; the 1985 English Missal provides additional texts and prayers not found in the Latin Missal, and often contains a rubric allowing the priest to use "these or similar words". (Even the Latin 2002 Missal contains such permissions, although only four times, and only during the liturgies of Palm Sunday, the Chrism Mass, and the Presentation of the Lord.) Such an invitation inevitably leads to exercising creativity where it is not permitted, such as in the Eucharistic Prayer.

It is as if the Mass as the Church prescribes it is simply not good enough and must be "massaged" by the priest in order to make it "relevant" to his parishioners. In place of "This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", we hear a variant based on the day's Gospel reading (or on the priest's homily). Are the words of St. John the Baptist simply irrelevant today? And instead of being told that "Happy are those who are called to His supper", how many of us hear "Happy are we who are called to His supper"? While the change may seem minute and insignificant -- and in that case, why even make such a change? -- it describes a closed community rather than a universal one, and might even suggest that all present are fit to receive Holy Communion. Perhaps the most embarrassing result of ad libbing prayers of the Mass is that the faithful don't know when the prayer has ended and their response is expected!

This attitude of constant innovation begs the question: if a centuries-old tradition can be discarded in the span of a few years, why should a 40-year-old tradition last through next week?

Bad Thing #3 - The discord it created between the Extraordinary and Ordinary forms.

The Latin Rite of the Mass as it was celebrated for over a thousand years was slowly being reformed and fine-tuned through the centuries. It produced hundreds of saints, inspired numerous religious orders, and exhibited truths of the Catholic faith in the face of heresies. But to hear some modernist reformers tell the story, you would think it was a spiteful machine designed to keep the laity silent and stupid and the clergy rich.

The tension that exists in the Church today between those who prefer the Ordinary Form and those who prefer the Extraordinary Form manifests itself in many ways. Sometimes this is a healthy tension that some, such as Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, refer to as a "gravitational pull" between the two forms, by which they edify each other. But sometimes this tension is dreadfully unhealthy. Because the two forms of Mass appear so different, some people have a hard time recognizing both of them as expressions of the same faith; consequently, either form has been called un-Catholic, and adherents to either form have been called heretics. The silence of the Extraordinary Form seems to be emptiness to people who are used to the Ordinary Form, and the audible prayers of the Ordinary Form seem to be deterrents to private prayer to people who are used to the Extraordinary Form. The differences are not only superficial but substantial at times; people form factions; people leave parishes to avoid abuses. This disunity is a lamentable outcome from a liturgical reform whose purpose was "to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ." [SC 1]

It can be stated truthfully that the Extraordinary Form is in need of reform; Sacrosanctum Concilium provides the means of effecting that reform. What is left to the Church over the next several decades is the organic implementation of this reform, building up this earthly liturgy to better reflect the heavenly liturgy, for the reverent worship of God the Father through the Most Holy Sacrifice of Jesus Christ His Son, and for the sanctification and edification of the faithful. Lessons can surely be learned from the Ordinary Form and the intermediate rites that existed between 1963 and 1969. No longer should the children receive stones instead of bread.

Liturgy: The hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture

So I recently finished reading Pope Benedict's address to the Roman Curia from December 22, 2005 [HTML | MS Word]. In it, he refers to the "hermeneutic of discontinuity" and the "hermeneutic of reform", the two ways of looking at the documents of the Second Vatican Council. He paints a very clear (and stark) picture of the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" (my emphasis):

What has been the result of the [Second Vatican] Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? ... Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council's deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.

In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.

The nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood.

Ouch. That's a rather scathing condemnation of the "spirit of Vatican II". Make no mistake, the Holy Father says that such a fundamental misunderstanding of the Counci is oriented towards a rupture between the Church as it existed before the Council and the Church as it exists after the Council, and that is not at all on the Holy Father's list of things to accomplish during the reign which God has blessed him (and us) with!

In a nutshell, he says that this mistaken hermeneutic assumes that the documents of the Council (e.g. Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) don't contain the full intent of the Council Fathers, but rather are a compromise that reconfirms "many old things that are now pointless" simply to avoid mutiny and "reach unanimity"; this bad hermeneutic claims that the true interpretation ("spirit") of the Council is one which reaches far beyond the text, giving its adherents ample wiggle-room "for every whim".

So the two questions I have, since Sacrosanctum Concilium is a "Roman" document (see this previous post for details), are these:

Why was this document "realized" far beyond its actual contents in a very liberal way (in a rather short span of time), whereas documents like Redemptionis Sacramentum are not "realized" after so many years, and even publicly ignored?

And can those who feel strongly-drawn to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite be blamed, since they are just slow in their "realizing" of the liturgical reforms envisioned (and not envisioned) by the Second Vatican Council?

Allow me to explain further. The priest I am currently in correspondence with does not "suffer the belief that the words of the Sacramentary have to be reproduced exactly" and sees nothing wrong with omitting various elements of the Mass and inserting things of his own, despite the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 22 §3 says very clearly: "Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." Is SC, n. 22 §3 simply one of those "Roman laws" that is "a goal to be achieved (and not always realized)"? Perhaps, interpreting the document in the "spirit of Vatican II", one recognizes that SC, n. 22 §3 was simply a necessary evil, a compromise for the sake of getting the document past the vote: it's not actually what the Council Fathers meant, and they certainly didn't expect priests to be held to the "official" liturgy or any of its "approved" translations.

What would happen if I get pulled over for running a red light and tell the police officer I do not "suffer the belief that the traffic signal has to be obeyed exactly"? The officer would probably tell me that it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. (Oh, that's English Law, not Roman Law. Apparently, in the Roman system, laws are there as an ideal, and no one actively enforces them; those who do try to call attention to them (like myself) are ridiculed or belittled or simply ignored.)

This frustrates me; it vexes me; it is a near occasion to sin for me, since it saps me of charity. I'm going to pray a Rosary in the presence of the Most Blessed Sacrament at the chapel this evening, with two intentions: reparations for liturgical abuse, and petition for an increase of charity.