In his book, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Father Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) lists “The problem of centralism in the Church” as one of the concrete problems the Council faced. He went on to write that the “problem of papal centralism is readily understandable to everyone.”
The Council’s response to this problem was an effort to develop the notion of Episcopal collegiality with a degree of autonomy of bodies of bishops, usually in the form of national conferences.
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (#36-39) states that:
It is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, (i.e. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.) to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
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.
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.
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.
Father Ratzinger describes this as “an especially important development” in “the decentralization of the liturgical decision-making… the formulation of liturgical laws for their own regions is now, within limits, the responsibility of the various conferences of bishops. And this is not by delegation from the Holy See, but by virtue of their own independent authority. This decision makes it possible to restore to the liturgy that catholicity which the Church fathers saw symbolized in Psalm 44 – the bride in her many colored raiment.”
The importance of this decentralization was illustrated by Archbishop Eugene D’Souza of Nagpur, India, who stated that “the marriage rite as it now stands is completely unintelligible to many of our Catholic people living in rural areas…. For example, since a ring means nothing at all to some of our people, a dish called the ‘thalee’ is handed by the husband to the wife.” In other places the ends of a woman’s sari and a man’s dhoti are tied together in a knot as a sign of the marriage contract.
However, the hopes of the Council have not been realized. In 1991, when the bishops of the United States approved a new lectionary for use in the celebration of Mass, it was forwarded to the Congregation for Divine Worship which confirmed it. That confirmation, however, was revoked by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Ratzinger, the head of that Congregation, established a seven man working group to revise the lectionary. Of those seven, one had a graduate degree in Scripture and two were not native English-speakers.
Now, word comes from Rome that the Congregation for Divine Worship is being reorganized with an added office for liturgical music, art and architecture. This office is charged with providing guidelines to ensure that hymns sung during Mass and the structure of new churches corresponds to the mystery being celebrated.
Many years ago, I celebrated morning Mass in the Cathedral of Nairobi. When I placed the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle after distributing Communion, I was struck by the large Celtic cross on the door of the tabernacle. I am concerned that a small committee in Rome will have little understanding of the music and architectural traditions of the non-European church.
After all, there was a pope who wanted to paint out the Last Judgment that Michelangelo had painted in the Sistine Chapel.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Pius Parsch
Another of the important forrunners of the liturgical reform of the Council was Pius Parsch, a Benedictine monk in the Austrian monastery of Klosterneuberg. He served as a chaplain in the First World War and observed the soldiers’ lack of understanding of the Mass. He became convinced that the Bible should be the people’s book and the liturgy the people’s work.
To this end he established a publishing center, Popular Liturgical Apostolate, to assist people with interior and exterior participation in the liturgy. He suggested some reforms that might encourage these goals, such as great emphasis on the Mass as a meal (perhaps using leavened bread), the reintroduction of communion from the cup, communion from hosts consecrated at each Mass. He was an early advocate of increased use of the vernacular which resulted in a partially vernacular Ritual for Austria in 1935 and an expanded one for Germany in 1950. As early as 1934, he pointed to the restoration of the Easter Vigil to its proper nighttime celebration, reform that Pope Pius XII included in his revision of the Holy Week liturgy.
In 1922, Parsch published a booklet on commentary on the Sunday Masses which grew into a five volume work entitled, The Church’s Year of Grace. (I have this set in my personal library and continue to consult it.)
He believed in the centrality of the parish in the Church’s renewal. “the center, the source, the focus of this growing parish communion will always be the altar, the Eucharistic-sacrifice-banquet.” To further this, he developed a combination of two forms of participation already in use, the dialogue Mass and hymn singing in the vernacular which maximized congregational participation. (In my time in the minor seminary in the late fifties, we employed these two practices, but never together, only on separate days, three days with dialogue and one day with hymns.)
To this end he established a publishing center, Popular Liturgical Apostolate, to assist people with interior and exterior participation in the liturgy. He suggested some reforms that might encourage these goals, such as great emphasis on the Mass as a meal (perhaps using leavened bread), the reintroduction of communion from the cup, communion from hosts consecrated at each Mass. He was an early advocate of increased use of the vernacular which resulted in a partially vernacular Ritual for Austria in 1935 and an expanded one for Germany in 1950. As early as 1934, he pointed to the restoration of the Easter Vigil to its proper nighttime celebration, reform that Pope Pius XII included in his revision of the Holy Week liturgy.
In 1922, Parsch published a booklet on commentary on the Sunday Masses which grew into a five volume work entitled, The Church’s Year of Grace. (I have this set in my personal library and continue to consult it.)
He believed in the centrality of the parish in the Church’s renewal. “the center, the source, the focus of this growing parish communion will always be the altar, the Eucharistic-sacrifice-banquet.” To further this, he developed a combination of two forms of participation already in use, the dialogue Mass and hymn singing in the vernacular which maximized congregational participation. (In my time in the minor seminary in the late fifties, we employed these two practices, but never together, only on separate days, three days with dialogue and one day with hymns.)
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Historical Research
One of the important areas that laid the groundwork for the Conciliar decree on the liturgy was historical research into the early development of the Mass. One of the outstanding scholars in the field was the Jesuit, Father Joseph Jungmann. He taught catechetics, pastoral theology and liturgy from 1925 to 1963 – with the exception of the seven years, 1938-1945, when the Nazis closed the theology department – at the University of Innsbruck.
In the late 1950’s Fr. Jungmann was regarded as the outstanding liturgical scholar in the German speaking world. In 1960 he was named to the conciliar preparatory commission and then served as a peritus (theologian) during the Council and as a consultor for the Councilium, the body entrusted with the implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy.
Jungmann authored over 300 books and articles. It was during the academic exile that Hitler imposed, that he wrote his two volume history of the Mass, later published in a one volume English edition as “The Mass of the Roman Rite.” This work has been acclaimed as the one work more than any other single book that prepared the way for the Conciliar reform of the liturgy.
The work of Fr. Jungmann and other historians of the liturgy enabled the Fathers of the Council to evaluate the liturgy in the light of its historical development.
In the late 1950’s Fr. Jungmann was regarded as the outstanding liturgical scholar in the German speaking world. In 1960 he was named to the conciliar preparatory commission and then served as a peritus (theologian) during the Council and as a consultor for the Councilium, the body entrusted with the implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy.
Jungmann authored over 300 books and articles. It was during the academic exile that Hitler imposed, that he wrote his two volume history of the Mass, later published in a one volume English edition as “The Mass of the Roman Rite.” This work has been acclaimed as the one work more than any other single book that prepared the way for the Conciliar reform of the liturgy.
The work of Fr. Jungmann and other historians of the liturgy enabled the Fathers of the Council to evaluate the liturgy in the light of its historical development.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Women
It can be challenging to realize the state of the Church fifty years ago. For example, Father Hermann Schmidt, SJ, professor at the Gregorian University who served as a consultant to the council’s preparatory commission on the liturgy spoke at a press conference. Asked about the role of women, he said that council Fathers could draw up norms permitting greater participation by women in the liturgical life of the Church, such as authorizing women’s choirs, noting that the current norms stressed the desirability of male choirs.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Logistics
For the opening session of the Second Vatican Council, the entry procession of abbots general, superiors general, bishops, cardinals and patriarchs took a couple of hours. The Council was an immense project. Between 2100 and 2200 bishops met in the working session of Vatican II. In addition there were some 500 theologians, guests from other Christian Churches, secretaries, ushers, technicians, and assorted support staff. Seating, sound, coffee bars, toilets all had to be put in place. The cost, just for outfitting St. Peter’s Basilica was a million (1962) dollars.
However, the logistics were not simply physical. There was the challenge of organizing a decision making meeting of over 2000 members. By comparison the United Nations General Assembly has 193 members and the United States Congress, 435. The Vatican had no prior experience to call upon; the previous council was a hundred years prior and had a mere 750 participants.
Pope John had established a preparatory commission which had developed a set of documents for the bishops to consider and vote on. The expectation of those in Rome was that the bishops would accept what was presented to them and go home. The Roman Diocesan Synod that Pope John had called for at the same time that he announced the Council generally followed that pattern
If the Council fathers had followed this path, meeting logistics may not have become an issue. However, the morning the Council met for its first working session, it became clear that the gathered bishops intended to engage in serious and open debate.
However, the logistics were not simply physical. There was the challenge of organizing a decision making meeting of over 2000 members. By comparison the United Nations General Assembly has 193 members and the United States Congress, 435. The Vatican had no prior experience to call upon; the previous council was a hundred years prior and had a mere 750 participants.
Pope John had established a preparatory commission which had developed a set of documents for the bishops to consider and vote on. The expectation of those in Rome was that the bishops would accept what was presented to them and go home. The Roman Diocesan Synod that Pope John had called for at the same time that he announced the Council generally followed that pattern
If the Council fathers had followed this path, meeting logistics may not have become an issue. However, the morning the Council met for its first working session, it became clear that the gathered bishops intended to engage in serious and open debate.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Language and Culture
The first topic the Council took up was the liturgy. In a press conference, Willem van Bekkum, Bishop of Ruteng in Indonesia, spoke in favor of using local languages in the Mass. He was an elected member of the council’s Commission on the Sacred Liturgy.
He said there is a need “to speak more spontaneously” but that “spontaneity disappears when the faithful are faced with a foreign tongue.” He expressed his hope that the language of his country as well as those of other Asian and African nations will become “sacramental languages.” If this were accomplished — through their introduction into the liturgy in general and the Mass in particular — he said, “a much more vital and rich liturgy will be achieved.”
Bishop van Bekkum was one of the main speakers at the international liturgical congress at Assisi, in September 1956. In his talk at that time he appealed for use of the vernacular in the Mass. He also urged the adoption of local customs and traditions into the liturgy wherever possible, and called for “restoration of the order of the diaconate to the laity.”
He told newsmen here that since 1956 his See has had a 24-man diocesan liturgical commission composed of four priests and 20 laymen.
“I considered my people much wiser than myself, especially the aged ones among them,” he said, “and so like a pupil I was always ready to learn whatever I could from them, especially whatever in their culture had possibilities of adaptation in the field of liturgy.”
Indonesians along with other Asians and Africans are concerned with the functions and meaning of their worship, he said. “Their celebration of a feast consists not only in hymns and prayers but rather in functions, that is, in all that the people do during the day or days of celebration. All these functions of the people make up the one structure of a people in worship.”
Bishop van Bekkum confessed that on arriving in Rome for the council he felt proposals for incorporating native customs into the liturgy would get little hearing. Now, he said, he is highly optimistic.
“I have learned that the experience we had in Ruteng has been multiplied hundreds of times over throughout Asia and Africa. And I have found a warm sympathy for these ideas among liturgical experts from the West.”
I had the good fortune of meeting Bishop van Bekkum at the Liturgical Week in Seattle in 1962, just prior to the opening of the Second Vatican Council. He described his efforts at enculturation of the liturgy in his rural. (I remember his saying that he could get anywhere in the world more quickly than he could get to the airport) diocese.
He would arrive at a village for Mass and met the villagers in the cemetery where he would bless the graves. Then they would process to the village well which he would bless. Mass would be celebrated in the village square and people would bring up the bread and wine. He commented that he found it problematic that “at every Eucharist, Jesus was imported” since there was no wheat bread or grape wine in his part of Indonesia.
He would later serve on the Bishops Committee of the Consilium for Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which oversaw the reform of the rites of the Mass and Sacraments.
He died in 1998 at the age of 88.
He said there is a need “to speak more spontaneously” but that “spontaneity disappears when the faithful are faced with a foreign tongue.” He expressed his hope that the language of his country as well as those of other Asian and African nations will become “sacramental languages.” If this were accomplished — through their introduction into the liturgy in general and the Mass in particular — he said, “a much more vital and rich liturgy will be achieved.”
Bishop van Bekkum was one of the main speakers at the international liturgical congress at Assisi, in September 1956. In his talk at that time he appealed for use of the vernacular in the Mass. He also urged the adoption of local customs and traditions into the liturgy wherever possible, and called for “restoration of the order of the diaconate to the laity.”
He told newsmen here that since 1956 his See has had a 24-man diocesan liturgical commission composed of four priests and 20 laymen.
“I considered my people much wiser than myself, especially the aged ones among them,” he said, “and so like a pupil I was always ready to learn whatever I could from them, especially whatever in their culture had possibilities of adaptation in the field of liturgy.”
Indonesians along with other Asians and Africans are concerned with the functions and meaning of their worship, he said. “Their celebration of a feast consists not only in hymns and prayers but rather in functions, that is, in all that the people do during the day or days of celebration. All these functions of the people make up the one structure of a people in worship.”
Bishop van Bekkum confessed that on arriving in Rome for the council he felt proposals for incorporating native customs into the liturgy would get little hearing. Now, he said, he is highly optimistic.
“I have learned that the experience we had in Ruteng has been multiplied hundreds of times over throughout Asia and Africa. And I have found a warm sympathy for these ideas among liturgical experts from the West.”
I had the good fortune of meeting Bishop van Bekkum at the Liturgical Week in Seattle in 1962, just prior to the opening of the Second Vatican Council. He described his efforts at enculturation of the liturgy in his rural. (I remember his saying that he could get anywhere in the world more quickly than he could get to the airport) diocese.
He would arrive at a village for Mass and met the villagers in the cemetery where he would bless the graves. Then they would process to the village well which he would bless. Mass would be celebrated in the village square and people would bring up the bread and wine. He commented that he found it problematic that “at every Eucharist, Jesus was imported” since there was no wheat bread or grape wine in his part of Indonesia.
He would later serve on the Bishops Committee of the Consilium for Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which oversaw the reform of the rites of the Mass and Sacraments.
He died in 1998 at the age of 88.
Friday, November 2, 2012
The Use of the Vernacular
One of the most forceful speeches arguing for the use of the vernacular in the liturgy was given by Maximus IV Saigh, the Melchite Patriarch of Antioch (who it is reported to write to the Pope, addressing him as the Successor of Peter in Rome, and signing his letter as the Successor of Peter in Antioch).
“It appears to me that the almost absolute value which is attributed to the Latin Language in the liturgy, in instruction and in the administration of the Latin Church presents a kind of anomaly for the Eastern Church; for without doubt Christ spoke to his contemporaries in their own language. He used a language which was understandable to all his hearers, namely Aramaic, when he celebrated the first Eucharistic sacrifice. The apostles and disciples acted likewise. It would never have occurred to them that the celebrant in a Christian assembly should read the passages of scripture, should sing the psalms, should preach or break the bread, using a different language than that of the congregation. Paul himself says explicitly, ‘If you bless with the spirit [i.e. in an unintelligible language], how is one who is present as an outsider to say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not understand what you are saying? You may give thanks well enough, but the other is not edified…In church I should prefer to speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in [unintelligible] tongues’ (1 Cor 14:16-19). All the reasons one can bring forward in favor of the untouchability of Latin – a liturgical language, but a dead one – must give way before this clear, unequivocal and precise reasoning of the Apostle. The Latin language is dead, but the Church remains alive. So, too, the language which mediates grace and the Holy Spirit must also be a living languge since it is intended for men and not for angels. No language can be untouchable…”
Quoted in Theological Highlight of Vatican II by Fr. Joseph Ratzinger “to show that the discussions could produce profound insights.
Fr. Ratzinger also notes that “it was not uncommon that glowing panegyrics in favor of Latin were themselves delivered in labored pidgin Latin, while the most forceful advocates of the vernacular could express themselves in classical Latin.”
“It appears to me that the almost absolute value which is attributed to the Latin Language in the liturgy, in instruction and in the administration of the Latin Church presents a kind of anomaly for the Eastern Church; for without doubt Christ spoke to his contemporaries in their own language. He used a language which was understandable to all his hearers, namely Aramaic, when he celebrated the first Eucharistic sacrifice. The apostles and disciples acted likewise. It would never have occurred to them that the celebrant in a Christian assembly should read the passages of scripture, should sing the psalms, should preach or break the bread, using a different language than that of the congregation. Paul himself says explicitly, ‘If you bless with the spirit [i.e. in an unintelligible language], how is one who is present as an outsider to say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not understand what you are saying? You may give thanks well enough, but the other is not edified…In church I should prefer to speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in [unintelligible] tongues’ (1 Cor 14:16-19). All the reasons one can bring forward in favor of the untouchability of Latin – a liturgical language, but a dead one – must give way before this clear, unequivocal and precise reasoning of the Apostle. The Latin language is dead, but the Church remains alive. So, too, the language which mediates grace and the Holy Spirit must also be a living languge since it is intended for men and not for angels. No language can be untouchable…”
Quoted in Theological Highlight of Vatican II by Fr. Joseph Ratzinger “to show that the discussions could produce profound insights.
Fr. Ratzinger also notes that “it was not uncommon that glowing panegyrics in favor of Latin were themselves delivered in labored pidgin Latin, while the most forceful advocates of the vernacular could express themselves in classical Latin.”
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Beginnings of Renewal
The renewal called for by the Liturgy by the Second Vatican Council was rooted in over a century of work, particularly in Europe and the United States.
Dom Prosper Guéranger, OSB, (1805-1875) is credited as the founder of the modern liturgical movement. He was ordained a diocesan priest in France. However, in 1831, when the old priory at Solesmes was announced for sale, he seized the opportunity to realize his desire to reestablish the Benedictine way of life in France, which had been destroyed in the French Revolution.
He purchased the monastery, and five priests joined him at the monastery, and in 1837, Guéranger was named abbot of the monastery head of the French Congregation of the Order of Saint Benedict.
The liturgical reforms of Trent had not been implemented in France where the liturgy was mainly under diocesan regulation. Through his influence and constant urging, Guéranger succeeded in restoring the Roman liturgy to the French dioceses.
In a time when the spirituality of people was essentially individual, nourished by devotions, he set out to encourage intelligent participation on the part of the faithful in the liturgical life of the Church. To this end, he engaged in a serious study of the liturgy and its history. He authored The Liturgical Year, which covered every day of the Church's Liturgical Cycle in 15 volumes. He also wrote a three volume work on the history of liturgical traditions, describing the development of Western liturgical practice.
He was the first to use the term, liturgical movement, and the first modern author to use the term, paschal mystery. “His teaching upon the church as the Mystical Body, the centrality of the paschal mystery, the doctrinal character of the liturgy, and his insistence upon the need to study the text of the liturgy, all these ideas were absolutely original in the nineteenth century.” (Robert Taft)
Dom Prosper Guéranger, OSB, (1805-1875) is credited as the founder of the modern liturgical movement. He was ordained a diocesan priest in France. However, in 1831, when the old priory at Solesmes was announced for sale, he seized the opportunity to realize his desire to reestablish the Benedictine way of life in France, which had been destroyed in the French Revolution.
He purchased the monastery, and five priests joined him at the monastery, and in 1837, Guéranger was named abbot of the monastery head of the French Congregation of the Order of Saint Benedict.
The liturgical reforms of Trent had not been implemented in France where the liturgy was mainly under diocesan regulation. Through his influence and constant urging, Guéranger succeeded in restoring the Roman liturgy to the French dioceses.
In a time when the spirituality of people was essentially individual, nourished by devotions, he set out to encourage intelligent participation on the part of the faithful in the liturgical life of the Church. To this end, he engaged in a serious study of the liturgy and its history. He authored The Liturgical Year, which covered every day of the Church's Liturgical Cycle in 15 volumes. He also wrote a three volume work on the history of liturgical traditions, describing the development of Western liturgical practice.
He was the first to use the term, liturgical movement, and the first modern author to use the term, paschal mystery. “His teaching upon the church as the Mystical Body, the centrality of the paschal mystery, the doctrinal character of the liturgy, and his insistence upon the need to study the text of the liturgy, all these ideas were absolutely original in the nineteenth century.” (Robert Taft)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)