Approaching the altar

The faithful [...] understood well that they all partook both in the offering of the Mass and in the receiving of the Eucharist, both in sacrifice-oblation and sacrifice-banquet. The ancient ceremonial brought this out very plainly. The faithful approached the altar at the Offertory and at the Communion, first to give and later to receive. The Mass was both their gift to God through Christ and God's gift to them through Christ.

Fr. Busch, Orate Fratres vol. II, no. 5

quoted in Fr. Martin Hellriegel's The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, p. 41 (1944)

The Gospel at Mass

When, for example, on the Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost we hear the Gospel of the "Widow of Naim" we must take it not only historically (as it occurred 1900 years ago) but also liturgically (as it is happening now). Today Mother Church brings her dead (or crippled) children back to the compassionate Jesus who by His life-restoring, life-perfecting mysteries will heal these sons and daughters and given them back to their Mother, the Church, turning her sadness into gladness. Weep not, good Woman, here is your son, your daughter, restored to life!

The Gospel (chanted or read in Holy Mass) is not only instruction, it is also revelation. In human form the divine becomes present. As often as the holy Gospel is announced, Christ the Lord steps into our midst. "Jesus in the midst of His disciples!" If the Gospel were instruction only, the frequent repetition of certain Gospel-portions might be considered unnecessary. But because it is an appearance of Christ, a revelation of the Lord, an "epiphany" of our God-King, it is as refreshing as the daily rising sun, old yet ever new. No matter how often a passage be read (liturgically, not just privately), no matter how well we might know its contents, it is for us another opportunity to say: Gloria tibi! Laus tibi! to Christ our Lord again becoming present in our midst.

Fr. Martin Hellriegel, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, p. 34 (1944)

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.

ZENIT's "Spirit of the Liturgy" Series

During the Year for Priests, ZENIT ran a bi-weekly series called The Spirit of the Liturgy.  I had a "Letter to the Editor" about the series published in ZENIT in late 2009:

Spirit of the Liturgy

Article: ZENIT Launches "Spirit of the Liturgy"

It is great to see ZENIT addressing the ways in which the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms express the same lex credendi. I think this series has the potential of dispelling confusion and of confirming our Catholic heritage and identity (especially in our priests).

As an author preparing a catechetical guide to the priest's prayers in the new English translation of the Mass, I will be looking forward to this series over the next several months!

Jeffrey Pinyan

The series ran from November through July.  A few months later, they started a second series under the same name.  Here are the articles from both the first and the second series:

• The Priesthood and the Mass, Fr. Mauro Gagliardi (Nov. 11, 2009)
• A Silence That Contemplates and Adores, Fr. Gagliardi (Dec. 4, 2009)
• Liturgical Vestments and the Vesting Prayers, Fr. Gagliardi (Dec. 18, 2009)
• Introductory Rites Unite Priest and Congregation, Fr. Paul Gunter, OSB (Jan. 15, 2010)
• The Priest and the Liturgy of the Word at Mass, Fr. Gagliardi (Feb. 5, 2010)
• The Priest in the Offertory of the Mass, Fr. Juan José Silvestre Valór (Feb. 19, 2010)
• The Priest and the Canon of the Mass, Fr. Gagliardi (Mar. 5, 2010)
• The Priest in the Communion Rites, Fr. Gunter (Mar. 19, 2010)
• The Priest and the Paschal Triduum, Fr. Nicola Bux (Mar. 26, 2010)
• The Priest in the Concluding Rites of the Mass, Fr. Gagliardi (Apr. 30, 2010)
• The Priest's Preparation and Thanksgiving for Mass, Fr. Gunter (Jun. 18, 2010)
• Observance of Liturgical Norms and "Ars Celebrandi", Fr. Gagliardi (Jul. 9, 2010)

• Liturgical Formation for the People of God, Fr. Mauro Gagliardi (Nov. 12, 2010)
• The Noble Simplicity of Liturgical Vestments, Fr. Uwe Michael Lang (Nov. 26, 2010)
• Beauty and the Liturgical Rite, Fr. Gagliardi (Dec. 13, 2010)
• Sacred Music at the Service of Truth, Fr. Paul Gunter, OSB (Dec. 24, 2010)
• More Than Words: External Signs of Faith by the Celebrant, Fr. Nicola Bux (Jan. 21, 2011)

I'll continue to update this post as new installments come in.

Early origins of liturgical practices

I am amazed to read how early we have written records of things such as daily celebration of the Eucharist and multiple Masses in a day.

From St. Augustine, on daily Mass:

I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord's Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. (Sermon 227)

Thus [Christ] is both the Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him. (City of God X, 20)

There are other things, however, which are different in different places and countries: e.g., some fast on Saturday, others do not; some partake daily of the body and blood of Christ, others receive it on stated days: in some places no day passes without the sacrifice being offered; in others it is only on Saturday and the Lord’s day, or it may be only on the Lord’s day. (Epistle LIV, 2)

Some one may say, “The Eucharist ought not to be taken every day.” You ask, “On what grounds?” He answers, “Because, in order that a man may approach worthily to so great a sacrament, he ought to choose those days upon which he lives in more special purity and self-restraint; for ‘whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.’” ... If, however, his sins are not so great as to bring him justly under sentence of excommunication, he ought not to withdraw himself from the daily use of the Lord’s body for the healing of his soul.” (Epistle LIV, 4)

For the wolf will come — not man, but the devil, who has very often perverted to apostasy believers to whom the daily ministry of the Lord’s body was wanting... (Epistle CCXXVIII, 6)

The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord’s table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord’s table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof. (Tractates on the Gospels of John XXVI, 15)

From Pope St. Gregory the Great, on multiple Masses in a day:

Because [by the Lord's bounty] I am going to celebrate the eucharist three times today, I can comment only briefly on the Gospel lesson. But [our Redeemer's] birthday compels me to say something, however short. (Homily 7, in Forty Gospel Homilies)

(H/T to Fr. Daren Zehnle)

O Lord, I am not worthy...

What the centurion said to Jesus, we too will say when the new English translation of the Roman Missal is put into liturgical use next Advent.  There are two reasons that the centurion responded to Jesus' offer to "come and heal" his servant. (cf. Matt. 8:5-13)

On the one hand, Jesus’ going to his house was unnecessary: Jesus, having authority, need only say the word to heal the centurion’s servant. (Personally, I wish the liturgical response in the Latin and in the English were: "and your servant shall be healed.")  On the other, Jesus’ going to his house would have complicated matters: it was unlawful for Him to do so, and He would have been considered ritually impure because of it. (cf. Acts 10:28)

I think the response of the centurion on our lips is a fitting reaction on our part to the Lord’s “condescending love”: “Lord, You needn’t go through all that trouble, You needn’t get mixed up with me. You’re powerful enough to do it from where You are.” Or, as St. Peter exclaimed, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (Luke 5:8)

And yet Christ invites us to Him. (cf. Matt. 11:28) And so there is a meeting (at the very edge of the sanctuary and the nave, if a Communion rail is employed) where we come to Jesus, and He comes to us. He does for us what He did not do for the centurion, and I am most grateful for it. He “goes through the trouble” of coming under my roof (which I understand to be the roof of my mortal frame, the roof of this temple of the Holy Spirit) and “risks” impurity to associate with me in such a sacramental way.

That’s why this newer, closer translation of this is meaningful to me, and I hope it’s meaningful to others as well.

I wonder: if the “yoking” language of Matt. 11:28-30 were employed in the Latin liturgy, if it would need to be “interpreted” by an English translation. I think modern — or at least non-agricultural — man sorely misunderstands the imagery of the yoke, especially as employed by Jesus. But does this misunderstanding require interpreting away the scriptural words and replacing them with a modern idiom? Can’t we have both the scriptural words and a true comprehension of them?

Pope Benedict on the liturgy's symbolism

In the technological culture of today, the Gospel is the guide and the permanent paradigm of inculturation, purifying, healing and elevating the better elements of the new languages and new forms of communication. For this difficult and fascinating task, the Church can draw on the extraordinary patrimony of symbols, images, rites and gestures of her tradition. In particular, the rich and dense symbolism of the liturgy must shine forth in all its power as a communicative element, to the point of deeply touching the human conscience, heart and intellect. The Christian tradition has always been closely linked to the liturgy and to the language of art, the beauty of which has its special communicative power. (ZENIT)

The National Anthem and the Liturgy

Here's half a post from Fr. Z's blog, What Does the Prayer Really Say?

[On Memorial Day], I noticed that when the young woman came up to sing the National Anthem, she turned the microphone around and sang it facing the veterans and the flag, both which were behind the podium that had been set up. This happened twice, once at the Veterans Memorial and once at the local town cemetery. I figured that the reason she did this was to show that it was not a performance of the National Anthem, but rather sung in remembrance and honor of our country and our fallen veterans.

What might this have to do with the liturgy? Read the rest of the post at WDTPRS.

Excellent resource on the Eucharistic Prayers and many Prefaces

I bought a copy of A Commentary on the Prefaces and the Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Missal recently and started reading it yesterday.  It's part of my research for my second book on the Mass, Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the Priest.  It's out of print, but I bought a copy through Eighth Day Books.  The book is by Msgr. Louis Soubigou, translated by Rev. John A. Otto in 1971 for The Liturgical Press.  The content seems quite orthodox, and many of the comments in the text present a decent picture of the liturgical and reform-related turmoil of the late 60's and early 70's:

"Constant recourse to the official Latin text [of the Prefaces] is particular necessary in this commentary because it is a translation from the French.  The author develops his observations from the official Latin readings and the French version, which normally remains very faithful to the original.  After comparing the American ICEL version of the Preface of the Holy Trinity (page 144) with the original Latin text, one may decide for himself the degree of its fidelity." (Introduction, p. 4)

"P.S. This Preface [for the Sacred Heart] (and for that matter the feast as a whole) has its gainsayers among the 'litniks.'  For them an aura of uncongeniality seems to haunt its thought and expression, particularly the effort 'to offer homage of reparation to the disdained and disregarded love of Christ.'  It may be difficult to see how this motif fits into traditional liturgy — but why make this appeal to tradition when traditional liturgy as such is likewise being discredited and discarded?" (Preface of the Sacred Heart, p. 125)

I'm skimming the Prefaces; I'll be reading in detail the second part, on the Eucharistic Prayers.  I recommend this book to anyone interested in learning about the doctrinal and spiritual content of the Prefaces and Eucharistic Prayers.

Christ in the Paschal Candle

Pope Zosimus established that a large candle be blessed on the Holy Sabbath of the Pasch, which the deacon blesses after benediction has been received from the priest.

This candle designates Christ: in the wax humanity, in the fire divinity; and as it illuminates it precedes the catechumens to baptism, just as once a column of fire preceded the children of Israel as they crossed the Red Sea, illuminating by fire and shading by a cloud. (Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis, 2.9.5, Deferrari's translation)

H/T to Fr. Charles (not my brother)

More on facing east: latent desire?

The following is derived from a thread on the Catholic Answers Forum. The regular text is from soflochristmas, the italics text is from other commenters, and the bold text at the end is from me.

---

My sister is the ONLY person in my family that has maintained a solid practice of her Catholic faith; probably because she's the only one with a family (two girls). She's at a very heterodox parish in Tampa but she at least attends Mass fairly regularly and my nieces are receiving the sacraments. ...

When I spoke with my sister on Sunday, she mentioned that she attended a "sunrise service on the beach". I was stunned because I was certain the Catholic Church on St. Anastasia island does NOT have such a service. She must have picked up on my "pause" and silence and she offered, "it wasn't a Catholic service...but....".

My heart sank. ... If my sister had a choice between receiving Christ in the Eucharist on the most holy day of the Christian calendar, or attending a "sunrise service on the beach", why would she choose one over the other? What is it about the "sunrise service on the beach" that would make her choose it over Christ in the Eucharist?

On another note why would one have a Easter service on a beach? What connection does the Resurrection of Christ at have to do with a beach in Florida? Were they there to glorify the Lord or just there to be in a really "neat" place?

Well, other than it's as far east as you can get (i.e., the first place the sun rises).

Look at that! People want to worship "in the east"! It's funny, but Catholics have been doing that for 2000 years. It's called worship ad orientem, facing the east. (Traditionally, the altar is at the eastern end of the church; this is still the standard, although it's not as common in the Latin Church as it is in the Eastern Churches.)

As Pope Benedict pointed out in a book he wrote back in the 80s, once upon a time church architecture was such that the light from the rising/risen sun would shine in through the eastern side of the church building during Mass in the morning. This allowed even the architecture and the sun to join in the worship of God. He called it a "cosmic liturgy".

How sad that we don't have that anymore in our Roman parishes and people have to walk out to the beach to try and satisfy that latent desire!

Liturgical Orientation: Why Face East?

This post, which will appear in chapter 2 of Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the Priest, is greatly inspired by two essays by Cardinal Ratzinger: “Eastward- or Westward-Facing Position? A Correction” (in Feast of Faith, pp. 139-145) and “The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer” (in The Spirit of the Liturgy, pp. 74-84).

---

Perhaps the most commonly misunderstood element of liturgical worship in the Ordinary Form of Roman Rite – second only to the use of Latin – is the direction which the priest faces during the Mass.  If you are familiar with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, you are well aware that for the majority of the Mass, the priest is not facing towards the people, but away from them.  This orientation has been described in numerous ways, some of which are inaccurate and misleading:  some say the priest has his back to the people (or worse, has turned his back on the people) or that he is facing the wall, others that he is facing the altar or the tabernacle.

First, if the priest “has his back to the people,” then the same must be said of all the people in the church (except those sitting in the back), but I know of no one who takes offense to the fact that the people sitting in front of them aren’t looking at them!  Just because the priest is not facing the people does not mean he is being rude or is ignoring them.  Those who see the gesture as the priest “turning his back on the people” are simply deriving the wrong symbolism, one of moral injustice, from this posture.  Second, if the priest is “facing the wall,” then the same should be said of the whole congregation.  Yes, the congregation is also facing the priest and the altar, but they’re facing the wall beyond the priest and altar as well.  Third, many modern churches are built such that when the priest is “facing the altar” he is also facing the people, so this description is not very specific.  Fourth, the tabernacle is not necessarily on (or behind) the altar, so the priest is not necessarily facing it; and again, the tabernacle should not be the focus of the priest’s attention at Mass. (cf. Ratzinger, Feast of Faith, p. 139)

All these descriptions focus on the wrong center of attention.  What is the proper center of attention during the Mass?  The Mass is a prayer to God; the “direction of the Eucharist [is] from Christ in the Holy Spirit to the Father.” (Feast of Faith, p. 140; cf. Catechism 1073)  This means that liturgy should be directed spiritually ad Deum, that is, “towards God.”  Ancient Christian tradition has manifested this spiritual orientation^[1] by facing ad orientem, to the east (whereas Jewish worship faces Jerusalem).

Why the east?  As they say in real estate:  location, location, location!  The east is the direction of the rising sun, which is a biblical (not pagan) symbol of Christ; thus, the east is associated with His Incarnation, Resurrection, Ascension, and Second Coming.

The Incarnation

God is often identified with light in both the Old and New Testaments:  the psalmist calls God “a sun and shield” (Ps. 84:11) and St. John says that “God is light and in him is no darkness at all.” (1 John 1:5)  So too Christ is likened to light and the sun, especially in His Incarnation, the first coming.

St. Jerome, in his commentary on the book of the prophet Ezekiel, saw the east gate of the Temple in Ezekiel’s vision as a sign of the Virgin Mary’s womb.  Ezekiel saw that “the glory of the God of Israel came from the east” (Ezek. 43:2) and that “no one shall enter by it” except the Lord. (Ezek. 44:2)^[2]  This Scripture was interpreted as a prophecy of the Incarnation, so its association with the east is particularly important.

The prophet Isaiah foretold a time when a child would be born who be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6) and who would sit on the throne of David and have a never-ending kingdom.  Of that day Isaiah said “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.” (Isa. 9:2)  St. Matthew tells us that this was fulfilled by Jesus’ preaching throughout the regions of Zebulun and Napthali. (cf. Matt. 4:12-16; Isa. 9:1)

The prophet Malachi foretold that the “sun of righteousness” would rise. (Mal. 4:2)  The Advent hymn “O Come, O Come Emmanuel” also invokes Christ as the Oriens, the “Day-Spring” or dawn.^[3]  The Canticle of Zechariah (the Benedictus, Luke 1:68-79), which the father of St. John the Baptist proclaimed upon the birth of his son, ends by describing God’s mercy being manifested as “the dawn [oriens] from on high” which would “shine on those who dwell in darkness,” alluding to the Incarnation.

Finally, St. John the Evangelist refers to Jesus as the “light” in the prologue of his gospel (cf. John 1:4-9), and Jesus spoke of Himself in the same way. (cf. John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46)

The Resurrection

At Christ’s crucifixion the sun was darkened (cf. Luke 23:45) and with the setting of the sun:  Golgotha is on the west side of Jerusalem, and Jesus was buried in the evening. (cf. Matt. 27:57)  On the contrary, His Resurrection is associated with the rising of the sun.  Cardinal Ratzinger explains that “the rising sun, the east – oriens – was naturally [a] symbol of the Resurrection” (Feast of Faith, p. 140)

Jesus rose from the dead at (or just before) sunrise. (cf. Luke 24:1; John 20:1)  His Apostles captured a glimpse of His resurrected glory at His transfiguration when “he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light.” (Matt. 17:2)  St. Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, quotes an early Christian baptismal hymn:  “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.” (Eph. 5:14)

The Ascension

St. Luke records in the Acts of the Apostles that Jesus ascended into Heaven from the Mount of Olives (cf. Acts 1:9-12), which was located to the east of Jerusalem.  The Roman liturgy associates Psalm 67:33-34 with the Solemnity of the Ascension; the Latin Vulgate reads “psallite Deo qui ascendit super caelum caeli ad orientem,” which the Douay-Rheims Bible renders as “Sing ye to God Who mounteth above the heaven of heavens, to the east.”

The Second Coming (Parousia)

Cardinal Ratzinger points out that the rising sun, the oriens, was not only a natural symbol of the Resurrection, but also of “a presentation of the hope of the parousia.” (Feast of Faith, p. 140)  Indeed, “every Mass is an approach to the return of Christ.” (Feast of Faith, pp. 140-141)

The angels at the Ascension told the Apostles that “Jesus … will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11)  Jesus Himself prophesied His return from the east:  “as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man.” (Matt. 24:27)  When Jesus returns, His appearance will probably be like that seen by St. John as recorded in the book of Revelation:  “his face was like the sun shining in full strength.” (Rev. 1:16)  In the heavenly Temple, Jesus is the lamp. (cf. Rev. 21:23; 22:5)

The East and the Cross

We also read in the book of Revelation that St. John “saw another angel ascend from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God” (Rev. 7:2)  The seal of God is believed to be the sign of the Son of Man, which is the cross. (cf. Ezek. 9:4; Rev. 7:2-3)^[4]

The early Christians marked the eastern wall of their meeting-houses with a cross first as a sign of hope for Christ’s return and only later as a reminder of His Passion. (cf. Feast of Faith, p. 141)  This tradition was the origin of the rubric, still present in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, which required there to be a crucifix on the altar, so that Mass would be celebrated not only facing east, but also facing the cross.  In the Ordinary Form of the Mass, a crucifix is still required, but it can be near the altar if not on it. (cf. GIRM 117)

The east, the oriens, signifies the whole Christian concept of time:  the Lord is “the rising sun of history.” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 84)  So while it is not proper to say that the Eucharist is celebrated facing the tabernacle or even facing the altar, it can be said that the Eucharist is celebrated “facing the image of the cross, which embodied in itself the whole theology the oriens.” (Feast of Faith, p. 141)

Liturgical Significance

So what value is there in celebrating the Eucharist facing the east?

First, we can express our spiritual worship through our bodies.  When the priest says “Lift up your hearts” before the Eucharistic Prayer, and the congregation responds “We lift them up to the Lord,” there is an internal orientation towards the Lord being spoken of.  This internal reality should also be expressed by external signs if possible.  Celebrating the Eucharist facing the east is an external manifestation of being directed to the Lord, of our hope for His return, for the new dawn and the endless day of Heaven.

Second, this posture should not be misconstrued as the priest having his back to the people, but as the priest and the people facing the same direction together.  At the end of his sermons, St. Augustine would often say “conversi ad Dominum” (“let us turn toward the Lord”), which had both a spiritual (conversion) and a literal (orientation) meaning in the liturgy, as priest and people would face the east together for the Eucharistic portion of the liturgy.  In this way, we resume the shared posture of the entrance procession by which we express our pilgrim state on earth, on a journey to the Lord. (cf. The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 80)

Third, churches were traditionally built facing the east, that is, with the altar at the eastern end, so that the Eucharist could be celebrated in that direction.  Cardinal Ratzinger refers to this as being mindful of the “cosmic dimension” or “orientation” of the liturgy (Feast of Faith, p. 140) by which the whole of creation can be included in worship of God.  This architecture “stand[s] in the cosmos, inviting the sun to be a sign of the praise of God and a sign of the mystery of Christ.” (Feast of Faith, p. 143)  Cardinal Ratzinger suggests that if our buildings were oriented this way, it would facilitate the recovery of a spirituality which embraces creation in a traditional manner.

Fourth, while it is reasonable for the Liturgy of the Word to be celebrated face-to-face as an exchange between the one proclaiming the Word and those hearing it, this orientation is not as suited to the Liturgy of the Eucharist.  The communal character of the liturgy is a positive and necessary one, but it should not be emphasized to the point that the Eucharist is regarded merely a communal meal.  The Eucharist is offered first to God as a sacrifice, from Whom it is received as spiritual food.

Fifth, there is sometimes confusion about the various ways in which Christ is present in the liturgy.  He is present in the priest in a particular way, and He is also present in the congregation, for where two or three are gathered in His name, He is present in their midst. (cf. Matt. 10:10)  But the congregation does not pray to Christ-in-the-priest, nor does the priest pray to Christ-in-the-people.  God is present in nature, but we do not worship a rock or a river as God; likewise, we do not worship one another as Christ.  The manner of God’s presence is not the same in all things.  The Church is not a community closed in on itself, but is open to “what lies ahead and above,” to God. (The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 80)  The Eucharist is not a “dialogue” between the priest and the congregation but between the Church and the Lord.

Historical Continuity

The Church, in both the east and west, has traditionally prayed facing the east.  If you attend a Byzantine Divine Liturgy, you will see that the priest prays the majority of the anaphora (i.e. the Eucharistic Prayer) facing the east, and probably behind an iconostasis, a screen with doors decorated with icons of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and other saints and angels.  The priest will from time to time turn to speak to face the congregation to speak to them; this happens in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass as well.

Eastward posture is the traditional posture of the Latin Church as well, although changes started occurring in the middle of the 20^th century, even before the Second Vatican Council.  The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy said nothing about “turning altars around.”  Still, the practice of priests celebrating Mass “facing the people” (versus populum) – standing on “the other side” of the altar – became more and more prevalent so quickly that it became the perceived norm, to the point where Mass celebrated ad orientem seemed to be incompatible with the Ordinary Form.  However, as Pope Benedict XVI has shown by his example, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite can be celebrated ad orientem; in fact, the Roman Missal anticipates that the priest will be celebrating Mass in this manner because on several occasions its rubrics instruct him to turn toward the people or toward the altar, instructions which are redundant if those two directions are the same.^[5]

An unfortunate “Latinization” of the Eastern Rites, by which they adopted traditions and characteristics particular to the Latin Rite (often at the expense of their own), has occurred at times during the Church’s history.  In 1996, the Vatican Congregation for Eastern Churches put out a document on Eastern liturgical worship, Pater Incomprehensibilis (PI).  The document praises the “the inalienable value of the particular heritage of the Eastern Churches” (PI 7) and stresses the need for preserving the Eastern liturgical traditions.  One such tradition, prayer facing east, was being endangered by “a new and recent Latin influence” (PI 107) which spread in the years following the Second Vatican Council.  After quoting St. John of Damascus at length (who provided numerous proofs from Scripture of God’s hallowing of the east^[6]) and addressing that the priest is “guiding the people in pilgrimage toward the Kingdom” rather than has his “back turned to the people,” the document calls for the retention and safeguarding of prayer facing east as “truly coherent with the Eastern liturgical spirituality” and having “profound value.” (Ibid.)

The Cross as East

Pope Benedict XVI, both before his election to the papacy and after, has suggested an alternative approach to facing east:  “the cross can serve as the interior ‘east’ of faith.” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 83)

Because the Liturgy of the Eucharist is not about a dialogue between the priest and the congregation, but between the whole church and God, the cross can serve as a focus point when the priest and the congregation face each other:  since the cross can be placed on the altar, rather than just near it, it serves to distinguish the Liturgy of the Word from the Liturgy of the Eucharist. (cf. Feast of Faith, p. 145)  This is the arrangement found on the altar at most papal Masses.

An objection to this is that the cross can be regarded as a “barrier” or “obstruction” to the act taking place on the altar.  Cardinal Ratzinger asks in reply, “Is the cross disruptive during Mass?  Is the priest more important than the Lord?” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 84)  His response to this objection is that “the cross on the altar is not obstructing the view” and is “an open ‘iconostasis.’” (Feast of Faith, p. 145)

---

[1] The word “orientation” comes from the Latin oriens, meaning “the east; sunrise,” which in turn comes from the verb orior, meaning “to rise.”

[2] That this gate “shall remain shut” was seen by many (e.g. Tertullian, Methodius, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, John of Damascus) as a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity, that she bore no other children besides Jesus.

[3] This hymn comes from a series of prayers said during the Liturgy of the Hours on the days concluding Advent, the season in which the Church celebrates the first coming of Christ and anticipates His second coming.

[4] This link is described in Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the People, pp. 28-29.

[5] When a church’s architecture does not place the sanctuary and altar in the eastern end of the building, one could treat that part of the church where the altar is located as a “liturgical east.”

[6] Among these are:  God is light (cf. 1 John 1:5), Christ is the “sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2), Christ as “the East” (Zec. 3:8 in the Septuagint), the location of Eden “in the east” (Gen. 2:8), the east-facing gate of the Temple (cf. Ezek. 44:1), Christ ascending toward the east (cf. Acts 1:11), and His statement about His return “from the east.” (Matt. 24:27)

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".

The "agenda" of the liturgical reform?

(Updated on Feb. 3rd; see below)

Here is an excerpt from a recent address given by Fr. Anscar Chupungco, OSB, in Australia. His overall tone can be gleaned from this question and answer he puts forth near the beginning: "What agenda does [a reform of the postconciliar reform] put forward so that liturgical worship could be more reverent and prayerful?  The agenda is, to all appearance, an attempt to put the clock back to a half century."

I find a bit of inconsistency in the following consecutive sentences of his address:

[T]he study of liturgy should have due regard for its historical, theological, and cultural elements. In this way we will not dismiss too readily the ancient prayers and rites of the liturgy on grounds that they belong to another culture and age. Such an iconoclastic attitude can indeed impoverish the theology of the liturgy. We know that many of these ancient forms are rich in doctrine and spirituality.

A serious study of liturgy will likewise neutralize the liturgical romanticism and allegorism that holds some sectors of the postconciliar Church. The indiscriminate revival of Latin and Gregorian chant, for example, indicates that some people have not followed the historical process. It is true that the Liturgy Constitution (SC 36 and 116), given the peculiar circumstances surrounding the council, claims them as distinctive elements of the Roman liturgy.

This seems duplicitous to me:  first he speaks of the danger of dismissing elements of worship "on grounds that they belong to another culture and age," then he speaks of the "peculiar circumstances surrounding the council" that led to its calling Latin and Gregorian chant normative and proper to the Roman Rite.  In other words, he is speaking dismissively of Latin and Gregorian chant as products of another culture and age which were only given lip service at the Council out of historical necessity.  I'm all for a Catholic faith which embraces the "both/and" (rather than "either/or") approach, but here it seems like Fr. Chupungco is asking too much:  he can't have it both ways here because the two ways are contradictory, not complementary.

He mentions the "indiscriminate revival" of Latin and Gregorian chant.  It should be noted that, had the Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy been more closely adhered to in the years following its promulgation, we would not be experiencing a revival of Latin and Gregorian chant; rather, they would have continued to be part of the normal liturgical life of Catholics.

For example, in article 54 of the Constitution, the same article which addressed in general terms the inclusion of the vernacular in the Mass, we read that "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."  These parts would include the Kyrie (in Greek, actually), Gloria, Credo (Creed), Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy), and Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).

As for Gregorian chant, article 116 of the Constitution "acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited [proprium = proper] to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place [principem locum = the principal place] in liturgical services."

Next in Fr. Chupungco's address, he says:

It is true that Latin and Gregorian chant still claim their rightful place in the liturgy.

Do they, really?  Where, exactly?  I would expect most Catholics (especially English-speaking ones, or at least American ones) would disagree that Latin and Gregorian chant have (or should have) a "rightful place" in the liturgy.  But I interrupted; continuing:

But to recall them as the ordinary, normal language and song of worship in parishes seems to overlook the conciliar principle of intelligent participation. The Church of Rome might have delayed the use of the vernacular, but it is part of her earlier tradition to adopt contemporary language in order to foster active participation.

I disagree with him here.  First, just because a text is in your vernacular does not mean you understand it immediately; catechesis (and a good translation!) is still required.  Have English-speaking Catholics had both of these for the past forty years?  Second, the Constitution did expect Latin to remain in use in the Mass, despite its allowance of the vernacular; see articles 36 and 54.  Third, Latin is indeed the normal — and normative — language of the Latin Rite; there's no getting around it.

As for intelligent and active participation, it is utterly insulting to insinuate that modern Catholics cannot participate actively and intelligently where Latin is used; it implies that Catholics had not been participating intelligently for the previous centuries!  It is not a matter of learning Latin; it is simply a matter of learning a few Latin phrases and chants, which you'll say week after week — if not more often — and which don't change.

He continues by saying:

To revive Latin as the daily language of the liturgy, regardless of whether or not the presider and the assembly can follow the readings and prayers, disclaims “sound tradition” and obstructs what the Constitution (SC 23) calls “legitimate progress”.

Again this mention of "revival".  While it is historically what we are experiencing now, a look at the Constitution and several post-Conciliar magisterial liturgical documents makes it clear that Latin was not meant to be jettisoned from the liturgy!  On the contrary to his point here, the wholesale removal of Latin and Gregorian chant from the liturgy was neither "sound tradition" nor "legitimate progress".

Here are two views (one pro the address, one con).  Read either at your own leisure and/or risk.

---

Update:  Fr. Chupungco continued to speak very negatively of the development of the Latin liturgy from its original form(s).  After a worthwhile and enlightening example about the changes perceived in the sacrament of Confirmation, he says:

According to the Liturgy Constitution the study of liturgy has three chief orientations, namely theological, historical, and pastoral. [...] The theology of the liturgy is drawn best from the liturgical books, namely the prayers, readings, and introductory notes. [...] Theologizing about liturgy apart from the liturgical books could become an exercise in theological hallucination. At best, it encourages the allegorical understanding of the liturgy, which incidentally was a favorite pastime of the clergy during the Middle Ages.

Fr. Chupungco seems to be operating from the assumption that all liturgical developments during the Middle Ages (and the Medieval Ages) were "accretions" (see below).  With this mindset, he sees the allegorical interpretation of the liturgy as an effect of "theological hallucination" which surely cannot be good for one's spiritual health.  It is as if each liturgical rite or sign must have a clear-cut and immediately graspable value, and that multi-layered and allegorical signs (e.g. the priestly vestments) are unnecessarily encumbering and distracting, and do not build a person up spiritually.  I disagree entirely:  the wealth of signs in the liturgy is surpassed only by the diversity of meanings of those signs, and this provides more than a lifetime's worth of contemplation on the mysteries contained therein.  (It also gives catechists something to write about!)

Later on, he says:

Students of liturgy should be aware of recent developments, including recent documents from the Congregation for Divine Worship that are becoming increasingly perplexing. Students should be equipped with a critical mind that allows them to weigh the theological, historical, and pastoral value of new norms and directives, though always in the spirit of ecclesial obedience.

It would be nice if he provided some concrete examples of perplexing documents, although I assume he would include the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum on that list.  What is perplexing about that document?  I don't know, Fr. Chupungco doesn't say, but the "student of liturgy" should be aware of it!  At least he tempers his call for critical examination (I would have said discernment) of liturgical norms and directives with a reminder of obedience, although there could be a wide interpretation of just how the "spirit of ecclesial obedience"

Then he says:

Everything in history has its own justification, though not necessarily a lasting and universal value. Not every text in the liturgical books, not every rite and symbol from the past, and not every feast in the calendar has perennial significance for the life of the Church. The reform of the Roman missal wanted by the Constitution (SC 50) eliminated much of the medieval textual and ritual accretions that only served to blur the meaning and purpose of the Mass.

It is clear that the liturgical reform carried out by the Consilium eliminated many medieval developments ("accretions") to the liturgy, but it is certainly debatable whether such elimination was "wanted by the Constitution" itself.  (Fr. Chupungco is clearly stating his stance on that question.)  But I find duplicity here again, a double standard which favors the (ancient) older over the (merely medieval) old.  He says that not everything that has been part of the liturgy has a "perennial significance," but he would probably argue that most of the most ancient parts which were omitted or replaced over time are superior to their replacements, and that most (if not all) of the additions from the Middle Ages onward "only serve to blur the meaning and purpose of the Mass."  I am curious if he is in favor of a diminution of feasts like Corpus Christi which were developed after the "ancient" period of liturgical development.

But he does not provide examples of these accretions and why he feels they bring about blurring.  (How I wish I could see notes on each element of the 1962 Missal that was touched by the Consilium's reforming pen, detailing each element's worth, meaning, and purpose.)  I am also not wholly convinced about certain changes that were made for the purpose of so-called "active participation," such as the change of the formula for distribution of Communion.

Now, it is true that the Constitution speaks of elements removed imprudently or added unhelpfully:  "[T]he rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary." (article 50)  But the Constitution does not say that all elements which were discarded or incorporated after a particular period of time are up for restoration or removal.  It does say that the substance of the rites must be preserved; whether that was always the case is a matter of debate, for example, in the case of the Offertory prayers.

For the record, I am in favor of the Prayer of the Faithful, an example of an element which "suffered injury" and has now been "restored."  There are other changes I'm not so sure about, but, as Fr. Chupungco suggested, my "critical mind" is tempered by "ecclesial obedience."

Later on, he describes "Vatican II's liturgical principles" as including "active participation with all this implies (use of the vernacular, congregational singing, lay ministry)."  While I recognize that the participation of the faithful at Mass is possible in a new way when the vernacular is used, the vernacular is not strictly necessary for active participation.  Regarding congregational singing, that need not mean injecting hymns into the liturgy, but could be fulfilled by singing the Ordinary (and perhaps also part of the Gradual or the Responsorial Psalm, part of the Alleluia, and maybe even the antiphon of the Communion chant); hymns, whether in Latin or the vernacular, can be wonderful, but it is unfair to the integrity of the liturgy to replace (to the point of near extinction) the Propers of the Mass with hymns chosen on a local whim.

On the topic of inculturation, he says:

Inculturation by definition uses dynamic equivalence to re-translate the liturgical books in the historical, socio-cultural, and religious context of the local Church.

That might be his working definition of inculturation, but is it the definition the Church uses?  To close this post, I will provide some references from magisterial texts addressing the matter of inculturation in the liturgy:

Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 37, Vatican II, 1963)

Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 38, Vatican II, 1963)

Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 39, Vatican II, 1963)

In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore: 1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced. 2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose. 3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 40, Vatican II, 1963)

The norm established by the Second Vatican Council — that in the liturgical reform there should be no innovations unless required in order to bring a genuine and certain benefit to the Church, and taking care that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing — must also be applied to efforts at the inculturation of the same Roman Rite. Inculturation, moreover, requires a necessary length of time, lest the authentic liturgical tradition suffer contamination due to haste and a lack of caution. Finally, the purpose of pursuing inculturation is not in any way the creation of new families of rites, but aims rather at meeting the needs of a particular culture in such a way that adaptations introduced either in the Missal or in combination with other liturgical books are not at variance with the distinctive character of the Roman Rite. (GIRM 398, 2000)

In preparing all translations of the liturgical books, the greatest care is to be taken to maintain the identity and unitary expression of the Roman Rite, not as a sort of historical monument, but rather as a manifestation of the theological realities of ecclesial communion and unity. The work of inculturation, of which the translation into vernacular languages is a part, is not therefore to be considered an avenue for the creation of new varieties or families of rites; on the contrary, it should be recognized that any adaptations introduced out of cultural or pastoral necessity thereby become part of the Roman Rite, and are to be inserted into it in a harmonious way.  Ever since the promulgation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the work of the translation of the liturgical texts into vernacular languages, as promoted by the Apostolic See, has involved the publication of norms and the communication to the Bishops of advice on the matter. Nevertheless, it has been noted that translations of liturgical texts in various localities stand in need of improvement through correction or through a new draft. The omissions or errors which affect certain existing vernacular translations – especially in the case of certain languages – have impeded the progress of the inculturation that actually should have taken place. Consequently, the Church has been prevented from laying the foundation for a fuller, healthier and more authentic renewal. (Liturgiam Authenticam 5-6, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2001)

The development of sacred art and liturgical discipline which took place in lands of ancient Christian heritage is also taking place on continents where Christianity is younger. This was precisely the approach supported by the Second Vatican Council on the need for sound and proper "inculturation". (Ecclesia de Eucharistia 51, Pope John Paul II, 2003)

As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass and reiterated the same in 1988. [...] As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed. (Redemptionis Sacramentum 27, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2004)

A more effective participation of the faithful in the holy mysteries will thus benefit from the continued inculturation of the eucharistic celebration, with due regard for the possibilities for adaptation provided in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, interpreted in the light of the criteria laid down by the Fourth Instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments Varietates Legitimae of 25 January 1994 and the directives expressed by Pope John Paul II in the Post-Synodal Exhortations Ecclesia in Africa, Ecclesia in America, Ecclesia in Asia, Ecclesia in Oceania and Ecclesia in Europa. To this end, I encourage Episcopal Conferences to strive to maintain a proper balance between the criteria and directives already issued and new adaptations, always in accord with the Apostolic See. (Sacramentum Caritatis 54, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007)

And, of course, the whole 2004 instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Varietate Legitimae.

Notre Dame Center for Liturgy

I recently found out about the online catechesis for the new English translation of the Roman Missal provided by Notre Dame University.  It's got free audio and video presentations (either 15 or 60 minutes in length).  Yet another research tool for The Prayers of the Priest!

Language in the liturgy

I just finished reading one of my Christmas gifts, Beyond Smells and Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy by Mark Galli.  The final chapter, "Words of Living W-A-T-E-R," discusses the use of a particular form of language in the liturgy.  I think these paragraphs are apropos to the conversations, debates, and arguments surrounding the new English translation of the Roman Missal:

In a media age, words come at us from all directions, like arrows from a thousand bows.  Most of these arrows are marketing words, advertising words, words designed to manipulate us, to sell us something. [...] For these reasons, among others, we distrust words, especially words that have been fashioned and shaped for the occasion by Madison or Pennsylvania Avenue.

So it's not surprising that many are put off by the words of the liturgy.  Surely, if we're trying to worship sincerely, praise a God who loves us as a father loves his children, we want to use language is "authentic."  What child uses formal speech to communicate with their "daddy"?  We want nothing to do with pretension, stuffiness, and any rhetoric that prevents us from being real.

In our desire to be real, we start thinking that authenticity is another word for spontaneity, as if everything we say at the spur of the moment is more true, more sincere than words we craft carefully.  For many, the Freudian slip is considered more authentic than the measured reply.

Indeed, sometimes what we blurt out thoughtlessly is actually what we mean and feel.  But more often than not, what we blurt out is ill-considered and something we either need to quality or apologize for.

The liturgy's answer to crafted language that deceives or manipulates is not to abandon crafted language but to shape it so that it reveals reality.  The most carefully crafted language in our culture tends to be poetry.  And poetry at its finest moments subverts our best attempts at hiding from reality. [...] The poetry of liturgy has just this power.  The liturgy contains words that have been shaped and crafted over the centuries.  It is formal speech.  It is public poetry.  As such it reaches into us to reveal not only the unnamed reality of our lives but the God who created us.  "In worship the voice of the Church calls up thoughts and feelings often far beyond us," wrote one liturgical theologian, "yet to which something in us faintly but firmly responds." (pp. 113-114)

I liked this book a great deal.  It's written by an Episcopalian, so it doesn't always portray a view of liturgy (and certain liturgical actions) that coincides with the Catholic view, but it is an excellent book about what the liturgy has that attracts us to it.

I might share a few other quotes from this book.  It will certainly be in the bibliography of Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the Priest.  (I'll need to read it again with a highlighter and a notepad handy, though!)

Liturgical Spirituality: The Baptismal Priesthood and the Mass (Part III)

The Unique Contribution of the Bread and Wine

← Part II: Spiritual Sacrifices United to Bread and Wine

While the faithful are called to unite their spiritual sacrifices to the bread and wine on the altar, this contribution is the duty of the faithful and does not make up the matter of the Eucharist, which is strictly bread and wine.  There is no Eucharist without these elements, prefigured by Melchizedek and chosen by Christ.  We offer ourselves spiritually, whereas we offer the bread and wine physically.  The bread and wine are a necessary component of the Mass, and they provide a unique contribution.  Quoting from Pope John Paul II's letter Dominicae Cenae once more:

All who participate with faith in the Eucharist become aware that it is a "sacrifice," that is to say, a "consecrated Offering." For the bread and wine presented at the altar and accompanied by the devotion and the spiritual sacrifices of the participants are finally consecrated, so as to become truly, really and substantially Christ's own body that is given up and His blood that is shed. Thus, by virtue of the consecration, the species of bread and wine re-present in a sacramental, unbloody manner the bloody propitiatory sacrifice offered by Him on the cross to His Father for the salvation of the world. Indeed, He alone, giving Himself as a propitiatory Victim in an act of supreme surrender and immolation, has reconciled humanity with the Father, solely through His sacrifice, "having cancelled the bond which stood against us."

To this sacrifice, which is renewed in a sacramental form on the altar, the offerings of bread and wine, united with the devotion of the faithful, nevertheless bring their unique contribution, since by means of the consecration by the priest they become sacred species. This is made clear by the way in which the priest acts during the Eucharistic Prayer, especially at the consecration, and when the celebration of the holy Sacrifice and participation in it are accompanied by awareness that "the Teacher is here and is calling for you."

During the Offertory, the priest asks God to be pleased with the offering of bread and wine, which are natural and imperfect (although they are the best we have to offer).  God accepts them as fitting matter for the Eucharist and changes their substance in the Eucharistic Prayer:  they become supernatural and perfect.

Because of what the bread and wine will become (once consecrated) the union of our spiritual sacrifices to the bread and wine during the Offertory is a sign of our participation in Christ and His sacrifice.  The bread and wine already have a physical likeness to Christ's sacrifice, since they are the same elements He used, and the same elements that were offered centuries before Him by Melchizedek.  When we join our spiritual sacrifices to them in the Offertory, each of us gives them (to our own degree) a spiritual likeness to Christ's sacrifice.  In the Eucharistic Prayer, this likeness is perfected as they receive a substantial likeness to Christ's sacrifice.

What began as our gift to God, bread and wine, becomes His gift back to us, the Eucharist.  But this gift to us is not meant simply for our nourishment, as the Eucharistic Prayer makes clear immediately following the consecration:  the Body and Blood of our Lord, under the species (appearances) of bread and wine, are then offered back to God as the perfect sacrifice.  Only after this offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass do we partake in the sacred banquet of Holy Communion.

The final part of this essay revisits the idea of joining our sacrifices to the offering at the altar, now that the offering is no longer bread and wine, but the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord.

Liturgical Spirituality: The Baptismal Priesthood and the Mass (Part II)

Spiritual Sacrifices United to Bread and Wine

← Part I: The Function of the Baptismal Priesthood at Mass

An external act that represents an internal reality is an empty show unless that internal reality is truly present. Imagine a man giving his wife a bouquet of roses, a gesture that is generally recognized as a display of love, without actually caring about her at all. The roses are real, the wife's reaction is real, but there is something missing: the intention. This analogy is apropos for the Offertory of the Mass, when bread and wine are brought to the priest. This external act, often carried out by members of the congregation, is not a mere functional procedure; it is representative of so much more.

The bread and wine were once, in the earlier days of the Church, the product of the community. They were presented along with other donations and material offerings. With the passage of time, the bread and wine were "regularized," and the offerings tended more and more towards monetary donations. Our monetary support finances the bread and wine, so they are still the "product of the community." But these physical offerings are not the only thing the faithful present to the priest at this time. Now, as then, the bread and wine also represent all that we have to offer to God. This is how Pope John Paul II explained the significance of this rite in his 1980 letter to Bishops on the Eucharist, Dominicae Cenae:

Although all those who participate in the Eucharist do not confect the sacrifice as [the priest] does, they offer with him, by virtue of the common priesthood, their own spiritual sacrifices represented by the bread and wine from the moment of their presentation at the altar. For this liturgical action, which takes a solemn form in almost all liturgies, has a "spiritual value and meaning." The bread and wine become in a sense a symbol of all that the eucharistic assembly brings, on its own part, as an offering to God and offers spiritually.

The only sacrifice that is truly acceptable to God the Father is the Eucharist, which is the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.  But God looks on what we offer with fatherly affection.  The bread and wine presented to Him by the priest is deemed acceptable as the means by which He will give us the Eucharist; the bread and wine are gifts from God to begin with.  Because the bread and wine represent our spiritual sacrifices, these too are regarded with a similar love:  God knows what He will make of the bread and wine, and He knows what He will make of our meager sacrifices.

The bread and wine are blessed during the Offertory prayers; they are set aside to be consecrated in the Eucharistic Prayer, when they will be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ.  But in that brief time between the Offertory and Consecration, the bread and wine are sacramentals because of the prayer of the priest over them.  A sacramental, such as the bread or wine to be used in the Eucharistic Prayer, or a paten or chalice, is dedicated for a particular use when blessed.  This is not the same as the change that takes place in a sacrament (such as the Eucharist), where bread and wine change ontologically (that is, in their substance, their reality).  A sacrament involves a change of being, while a sacramental involves a change of purpose.

By uniting our spiritual sacrifices to the bread and wine in the Offertory, we "appropriate" those sacramentals, much in the same way we "appropriate" Holy Water (another sacramental) by being blessed with it, or we "appropriate" a blessing over a meal by praying it.  We join our spiritual sacrifices to the bread and wine (which represent, physically, those very sacrifices), imbuing them with a greater spiritual significance for each of us and for the Church as a whole.

In presenting the bread and wine (with our spiritual intentions) to God, we are like the good stewards in the parable of the talents: "Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more." (Matt. 25:20) The first five talents are the "good works ... prepared [by God] beforehand" for which we were "created in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:10; cf. 2 Cor. 9:8), whereas the second five talents are the "fruit[s] in every good work" that we carry out. (Col. 1:10; cf. John 15:1-8; Rom. 7:4)  As the Offertory prayers state (in the Latin and the accurate English translation), "through [God's] goodness we have received the bread we offer [Him]." The bread and wine we offer to God are the "five talents more", the fruit of investing the "five talents" which God gave us (seed and water and sunlight).

When we join our devotion to the bread and wine, we should be mindful of what will happen to the bread and wine:  it will be changed in substance to become the Eucharist.  The significance of our spiritual sacrifices bound up with the bread and wine will be made clear in the next two parts of this essay.

Part III: The Unique Contribution of the Bread and Wine →

Liturgical Spirituality: The Baptismal Priesthood and the Mass (Part I)

The Function of the Baptismal Priesthood at Mass

There are two ways that Christ's priesthood is exercised in the Church. One is the ministerial priesthood, whereby men are ordained as priests to offer the Eucharist, the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. The other is the common priesthood, whereby every baptized Christian is called to offer spiritual sacrifices to God, ultimately offering Him their very selves.

The line between these two priesthoods, which "differ from one another in essence and not only in degree" (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 10), has been blurred or even erased in the minds of some Catholics today. Some denigrate the ministerial priesthood (or elevate the baptismal priesthood) to equate the two priesthoods, treating the ministerial priest as a mere representative of the congregation, instead of as the representative of Christ.  This is utterly opposed by Church teaching, as the documents of Vatican II make clear.

There is a serious lack of understanding concerning the baptismal priesthood and what it truly entails, especially in the context of the Mass. What must be understood is that the baptismal priesthood is an exercise of the apostolate of the laity, just as the ministerial priesthood is an exercise of the apostolate of the ordained. Of course, one must know, then, what the apostolate of the laity is!  It just so happens that there is a Vatican II document specifically about that, Apostolicam Actuositatem. In addition to that document, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, summarizes the lay apostolate in Part IV (paragraphs 30-38):

[T]he laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. They live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular professions and occupations. They live in the ordinary circumstances of family and social life, from which the very web of their existence is woven. They are called there by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of the Gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a leaven. In this way they may make Christ known to others, especially by the testimony of a life resplendent in faith, hope and charity. Therefore, since they are tightly bound up in all types of temporal affairs it is their special task to order and to throw light upon these affairs in such a way that they may come into being and then continually increase according to Christ to the praise of the Creator and the Redeemer. (Lumen Gentium 31)

The word apostolate can be understood as "mission."  What is the "mission" of the laity?  We are called to live outside the walls of churches and monasteries and convents. We are called to bring the sanctifying presence of Christ into the world: that is why Mass ends with a dismissal, a missio, a mission. In our capacity as baptismal priests, we are called to make of the world (and our lives in it) an offering, a spiritual sacrifice to God, joined to the ministerial priest's sacrifice of the Eucharist.

Some people think (because they were taught so) that Vatican II opened the door to myriad liturgical activities performed by the laity; that's how they interpret the call to "active participation" (Sacrosanctum Concilium 14).  That is simply not the case.  In all the Council documents, there is but one sentence which speaks directly to the carrying out of liturgical functions by the laity:  "Finally, the hierarchy entrusts to the laity certain functions which are more closely connected with pastoral duties, such as the teaching of Christian doctrine, certain liturgical actions, and the care of souls." (Vatican II, Apostolicam Actuositatem 24)  While the extraordinary assistance of some laymen at Mass is appreciated in times of necessity, the exercise of the baptismal priesthood at Mass is not rooted in "a visible liturgical rite" (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei 93) but rather in the spiritual union of their own sacrifices with the bread and wine presented to the priest, culminating in the union of themselves to the Eucharist offered to the Father.

Part II of this essay will examine the uniting of spiritual sacrifices with the bread and wine in the Offertory.

Part II: Spiritual Sacrifices United to Bread and Wine →