GENERAL AUDIENCE
Catechesis. The Documents of the Second Vatican Council. III. Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. 2. The reform of the liturgy: tradition and development
Dear brothers and sisters, good morning and welcome!
In the Encyclical Mediator Dei, the Venerable Pius XII writes that “the Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded” (no. 59).
In full accordance with this principle, the Second Vatican Council, in the Introduction to the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), recognizes “particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy” (no. 1). The Council assembly was gathered, in fact, with the desire to “impart an ever increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church” (ibid.).
At that moment in history, there was a strong sense of the need for a renewal of the ritual forms through which, for centuries, the Church had glorified God and sanctified the Christian people. Thanks to the Liturgical Movement, the conviction had matured—later expressed by Saint John Paul II—that “a very close and organic bond exists between the renewal of the liturgy and the renewal of the whole life of the Church. The Church not only acts but also expresses herself in the liturgy, lives by the liturgy and draws from the liturgy the strength for her life” (Letter Dominicae Cenae, 13).
To encourage the access of the faithful to the richness of the gifts of grace dispensed by the sacred liturgy, the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium thus indicates, with a very effective phrase, the direction to take: “That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress” (SC, 23).
Pope Benedict XVI grasped in this declaration of intent the “reform programme” of the Council Fathers, “a balance between the great liturgical tradition of the past and that of the future”, noting that “tradition and progress are often clumsily opposed”, whereas “actually, the two concepts merge: tradition is a living reality, which therefore includes in itself the principle of development, of progress. It is as if to say that the river of tradition also carries its source in itself and flows towards the outlet” (Address to participants in the Congress promoted by the Pontifical Athenaeum of Saint Anselm on the 50th anniversary of foundation, 6 May 2011).
The Council affirms the legitimacy of this progress, rooted in authentic Tradition, distinguishing within the liturgy “immutable elements, divinely instituted” from “elements subject to change [which] not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it” (SC, 21). Changes of this type have taken place constantly over the centuries in order to enable the faithful to participate fruitfully, through ritual actions, in the Paschal Mystery of Christ, the foundation of the Christian faith. The Church’s worship has thus been “embodied” in the cultural forms of each age and has been able to influence them and even transform them. The liturgy has thus been, for centuries, a driving force for evangelization. Today, this energy must be renewed in continuity with the authentic and living Catholic tradition, that is, in accordance with a dynamic aimed at introducing believers to the fullness of the truth.
It is therefore understandable why the Council Fathers recommended that the revision of the rites, when “the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them”, must be carried out taking care that “any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC, 23). For the good of the entire Church, every reform must always be preceded by careful “theological, historical and pastoral” investigation (ibid.). The Council Magisterium, in this way, thus calls for the avoidance of confusion amongst the faithful, discouraging anyone from adding, removing or altering anything in liturgical matters on their own initiative (cf. SC, 22). The progress evoked in the Conciliar Constitution in no way compromises ecclesial communion: rather, it seeks to confirm and foster it.
I therefore urge all those called to prepare the celebration of the divine mysteries, in particular priests who exercise the ministry of liturgical presidency, to always uphold that respect for the texts and regulations of the liturgy which springs from an inner attitude of openness and trust in God, manifesting humility before His greatness and sincere fidelity to ecclesial communion.
My brief commentary:
It is great that Pope Francis is not mentioned in this particular catechisis but only Pope Benedict and St. John Paul II—the two great liturgical popes both of whom promoted the renewal of the liturgy in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concilium but also were progressive enough to allow the older rites to be celebrated as well, Pope Benedict XVI truly progressive and non-rigid in this regard. We can’t say that about Pope Francis.
The last paragraph is truly important and in Pope Leo paraphrases Fr. Z! The pope tells priests to read the black and do the red!
Pope Leo also calls for the organic reform of the Liturgy:
…in this way, thus calls for the avoidance of confusion amongst the faithful, discouraging anyone from adding, removing or altering anything in liturgical matters on their own initiative (cf. SC, 22). The progress evoked in the Conciliar Constitution in no way compromises ecclesial communion: rather, it seeks to confirm and foster it.
9 comments:
Yes, “a very close and organic bond exists between the renewal of the liturgy and the renewal of the whole life of the Church..." and any objective analysis of the Church since 1965 shows that the NO, as it has been celebrated, has been a disaster.
The All Highest K will be unhappy!!!
Father, as you will.be wellaware what the Council Father's wanted we got in the 1965 Missal-subsequently referred to as the "Interim Missal (Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, separate Confiteor of Priest deleted, Vernacular Readings).The 1969 Pauline Novus Ordo was not what the Second Vatican Council ever intended.Until Authorities in Rome admit this and restore/correct certain elements (Offertory Prayers /silent Canon )we will continue to have Liturgical chaos.
Totally unrelated to this post, it seems that the SSPX has identified the four men to be consecrated bishop in July. I happen to know the American selectee, Fr. Goldade, who was the prior of the SSPX chapel we used to attend. I think fondly of him since he made a point to arrange his travels to be present at the emergency birth of our son, baptized him, and presided over his funeral. Say what you will about the SSPX (and there's a lot to be said), Fr. Goldade is an exceptional pastor.
Marc, he sounds like a wonderful man. Too bad we don't have more like him in the so-called clergy in "union with Rome."
Speaking of liturgical catechesis, the article linked below, and the ones preceding it, are enlightening historical studies of the reception of the liturgical changes in English-speaking areas.
It puts the lie to some of the worn-out canards about the Consilium being guided by the holy, holy, holy Ghost in its banal productions, and the repeatedly-debunked notion that Catholic liturgical participation dropped just because other social engagement dropped, and so on. Another article in the series also happens to highlight the insensitivity, ignorance, annd anrrogance of those forcing liturgical changes down the laity’s throats. Plus ca change…
Read if you wish (though I don’t dare think it will change any old leopard’s tricks): https://handmissalhistory.com/newmass1964conclusion/
Nick
Thanks for sharing
The money quote:
Close examination of contemporary commentary and reporting reveals that Catholics – both laity and clergy – who lived through the initial liturgical changes beginning in 1964 knew of the dissatisfaction of the laity, grew increasingly aware of the deterioration of Mass attendance, and specifically blamed the new liturgy for contributing to the decline. This contemporary recognition, more than any retrospective analysis, is critical and fundamental to understanding the way the initial liturgical reforms were understood and received by Catholics at the time. While previous scholarship has almost universally bracketed the story of the “interim” liturgical reform in the “interim” years of 1964–1968, it is now clear that this is precisely where the primary story of the entire post-conciliar liturgical reform is to be found.
In writing his satirical Conservative’s Lament, published just five days after the implementation of “the New Mass” throughout the United States in November 1964, Father Paul Courtney managed to capture the essence of the reaction to the liturgical changes – far more accurately and profoundly than he himself could know at the time. The weary “I hope all changes are just about done” cannot but produce a rueful smile on the face of the modern reader, who knows in hindsight that the changes had only just begun.
But this refrain – ‘I hope the changes are over, why won’t they stop?’ – would define the entire saga of the revised liturgy, at every step of the way, from 1964 to 1970 and beyond. Layfolk, priests, and even bishops routinely expressed their bewilderment with the changes and overarching desire for everything to stop:
The empty cassock won't accept this, however.
Ol Nik - I read the article you referenced.
First, when what purports to be a serious article is authored by "Nico" who is described as, "...a husband and father by vocation and conspicuously not a research historian by profession" I am given pause. Who is this and what are his credentials? Yes, credentials matter.
Second, the phrase "the laity" appears 26 times in the article. I recall St. John's use of "the Jews" in his Gospel and how, for a variety of reasons, this global description was misunderstood for centuries. Too many understood it to mean ALL Jews, those in the time of Christ and Jews today.
"The Laity" is far too broad. For example: Nico writes, "...the laity themselves (including those who liked other parts of the liturgical changes) overwhelmingly detested having lectors foisted upon them and wanted the role eliminated." ALL the laity? Many of the laity? Some laity? A few laity? "The laity" needs qualification.
Third, Nico writes, "But a substantial minority — much larger than previously recognized — disliked the new liturgy..." How was this "much larger" minority measured?
Nico dismisses out of hand the fact, and it is a fact, that other Christian denominations and many other groups in American and Western culture experienced similar or even greater declines in membership/participation during the same time frame. To say that "the notion that Catholic liturgical participation dropped just because other social engagement dropped" has not been debunked. Nico ignore it and it seems you do as well.
Post a Comment