The Mass of Vatican II | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. | IgnatiusInsight.com
The Mass of Vatican II | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. | IgnatiusInsight.com
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium,
was one of two documents issued on the same day, December 4, 1963, the
first two documents issued by the Second Vatican Council. The other document,
Inter Mirifica, is on social communication. Sacrosanctum Concilium
is one of the most important documents of the Council, one that has been
the least understood and, I believe, has wrought the most havoc - not
by having been fulfilled - but by having been ignored or misinterpreted.
Now there should be no argument about the central intent of the Council
concerning the liturgy. The Council actually spells out its intent, in
paragraph 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium: "Mother Church earnestly
desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and
active participation in liturgical celebrations, which is demanded by
the very nature of the liturgy." The key words here are "full, conscious,
and active participation." The Latin for "active participation" is actuosa
participatio.
I did a little research into previous uses of that expression in papal
and other ecclesial documents. The first papal usage was in 1903 by Pope
St. Pius X, whose motto was "Omnia Instaurare in Christo" (To restore
all things in Christ). He considered himself a pope of renewal. He was
elected in August of 1903 and in November, he issued one of the first
documents of his pontificate, a motu proprio called Tra Le Solicitudini,
that is, "Among the Concerns." This was a document on the renewal of sacred
music. In it, the Holy Father states, "In order that the faithful may
more actively participate in the sacred liturgy, let them be once again
made to sing Gregorian Chant as a congregation."
That's what the term "active participation" meant when it was first used
in a papal document. But it had been used ten years earlier in another
document, issued by Pius X before he was pope. He was the patriarch of
Venice, and the document - as it turns out - was actually written by a
Jesuit, with the wonderful name of Angelo dei Santi ("angel of the saints").
Sounds like a fictitious name.
In any case, the first use of actuosa participatio, i.e., active
participation, referred explicitly and exclusively to the restoration
of the congregational singing of Gregorian Chant. In 1928, Pope Pius XI
reiterated the point in his Apostolic Letter, Divini Cultus. Nineteen
years after that, in the Magna Carta of liturgical reform, Mediator
Dei, issued by Pius XII, the same term was used with the same meaning.
So until the Second Vatican Council, the term "active participation" referred
exclusively to the singing of Gregorian Chant by the people.
No Innovations Unless the Good of the Church Requires Them
But back to the Council. In the same paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium,
no. 14, the Council continues: "In the restoration and promotion of the
sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is
the aim to be considered before all else." So the Council itself defines
the primary aim of liturgical renewal: full, conscious and active participation.
How does the Council initially intend for the aim to be achieved? That,
also, is not something we have to guess at or speculate on: "And, therefore,
pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it by means of the necessary
instruction in all their pastoral work." The Council's idea is clear:
the liturgy is to be renewed by promoting more active participation through
the means of greater education. Nothing whatsoever is said here about
any kind of changes or reform of the rite itself. Later, when changes
are discussed, the Council states in paragraph 23: "There must be no innovations
unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them."
So no changes unless there is a real, proven, demonstrable need.
Paragraph 23 continues: "And care must be taken that any new forms adopted
should in some way grow organically from forms already existing." Organic
growth - like a plant, a flower, a tree - not something constructed by
an intellectual elite, not things fabricated and tacked on, or brought
back from ten centuries ago, or fifteen centuries ago, but an organic
growth. That's what the Council itself said.
Paragraph 48 begins the chapter on the Mass. And the title of this chapter
is interesting. It's not called "The Eucharist" or "The Mass"; it's called
"The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist." Even in the chapter title,
you have the sense that what's important is mystery, sacredness, awe,
the transcendence of God.
Paragraph 48 returns to the theme of greater awareness, a greater knowledge
of the faithful, in order that they might enter more fully into the mysteries
celebrated: "For this reason the Church, therefore, earnestly desires
that Christ's faithful, when present at the mystery of faith should not
be there as strangers or silent spectators. On the contrary, through a
good understanding of the rites and prayers, they should take part in
the sacred action conscious of what they are doing with devotion and full
collaboration." Then, in paragraph 49, the document says, "For this reason
the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with
assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and Feasts of Obligation,
has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass,
even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious
in the fullest degree."
Paragraphs 50 to 58 contain nine specific changes the Council had in mind
for the renewal of the liturgy. But before we consider them, we must recall
that when the Council made these proposals, it didn't dream them up overnight.
Although this was the first document issued at the Council, it was not
issued without long preparation. The modern liturgical movement began
in the middle of the 19th century. It was given great impetus by Pius
X himself, in the beginning of the 20th century, and by years of study,
prayer, and liturgical congresses during the first half of the century.
In fact, after Mediator Dei in 1947, there were seven international
liturgical conferences, attended by liturgical experts, by pastors and
by Roman officials. If you read the minutes of those meetings and the
concrete proposals they made, you will see that what the Council outlines
here is the fruit of those meetings. This is really the distillation of
the prayer and reflection that was the culmination of the liturgical movement,
which had existed for over a century prior to the Council.
Nine Proposals
What are the nine liturgical proposals, or the nine liturgical mandates,
of the Council? Paragraph 50 says the rites are to be simplified and those
things that have been duplicated with the passage of time or added with
little advantage, are to be discarded. And, after the Council, this reform
did take place in many ways. I think it took place to a much greater degree
than the Council intended, but there are certain simplifications in the
Mass that the Council clearly intended.
Paragraph 51: The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more
fully. That has been accomplished by a greater number of readings from
the Bible interspersed throughout the liturgical cycle, both in the Sunday
and weekday cycles. Now, especially if you attend daily Mass, you have
a much richer fare, if you will - a much expanded selection of Biblical
readings.
Paragraph 52 says: "The homily is to be highly esteemed as part
of the Liturgy itself." The Council called for a greater effort to have
good homilies and I think the effort has been made. Whether the homilies
are better or not, you can judge for yourselves. Paragraph 53 says that
the Common Prayer or Prayer of the Faithful should be restored, and that's
been done, too.
Paragraph 54 is a key paragraph: "In Masses which are celebrated
with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue."
What did the Council have in mind? Let's continue: "This is to apply in
the first place, to the readings and to the Common Prayer. But also as
local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people."
Yet it goes on to say, "Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the
faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts
of the Ordinary of the Mass" - (that is, the unchanging parts, the parts
that are there every day) - "which pertain to them."
So, the Council did not abolish Latin in the liturgy. The Council permitted
the vernacular in certain limited ways, but clearly understood that the
fixed parts of the Mass would remain in Latin. Again, I am just telling
you what the Council said.
Paragraph 55 discusses receiving Communion, if possible, from hosts
consecrated at the Mass in which you participate. That is often done or
attempted in many parishes today, but it is difficult to do in a precise
way. It's hard to calculate the exact number of hosts you will need. Also,
you have to keep some hosts in the Tabernacle for the sick and for adoration.
The Council also permits Communion under both species here, but under
very limited circumstances. For example, "to the newly ordained in the
Mass of the Sacred Ordination, or the newly professed in the Mass of Profession,
and the newly baptized in the Mass which follows baptism." The Council
itself did not call for offering both species to all the faithful all
the time, but it did grant limited permission for it.
Paragraph 56 says that there are two parts of the Liturgy, the
Word and the Eucharist, and that a pastor should insistently teach the
faithful to take part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and Feasts
of Obligation. That is, to consider the first part of the Mass, the Table
of the Word, as a significant and essential part of the Mass, so you don't
think you have gone to Mass just by coming after the Offertory and being
there for the Consecration and Communion.
Paragraph 57 states that concelebration should be permitted; paragraph
58, that a new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up.
That is the sum total of the nine mandates of the Council for change in
the ritual itself, although there are a few other pertinent paragraphs
to mention here.
In paragraph 112, in which the Council speaks specifically of music, we
read: "The musical tradition of the Universal Church is a treasure of
inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art." That is a
stupendous and shocking statement; the Council actually says that the
Church's music is a treasure of art greater than any other treasure of
art she has. Think about that. Think about Chartres Cathedral. Think about
the Pieta. Think about Da Vinci's Last Supper. Think of
all the crucifixes from Catalonia in Spain, and all the Church architecture
and art and paintings and sculpture. The Council boldly says that the
Church's musical tradition is a treasure of inestimable value greater
than any other art.
But the Council would be remiss in making such a shocking statement without
giving a reason for it: "The main reason for this preeminence is that,
as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part
of the solemn liturgy." What that means is this: it's wonderful to have
a beautiful church, stained glass windows, statues, a noble crucifix,
prayerful architecture that lift your heart up to God. But those are all
surroundings of the Mass. It's the "worship environment," as they would
say today. But it's not the Mass itself. The Council says that when the
Mass itself is set to music, that's what ennobles music, which, itself,
enhances the Mass; and that's what makes the musical tradition the most
precious tradition of the Church.
Notice, however, that the Council implies what many Church documents have
said explicitly - that the most perfect form of music at Mass is not the
hymns, the so-called "Gathering hymn" and its antithesis - I guess you
would call it the "Scattering hymn" - at the end. The most appropriate
use of music at Mass, as seen by Church tradition and reaffirmed by the
Council, is singing the Mass itself: the Kyrie, the Agnus Dei, the
Sanctus, the Acclamations, the Alleluias and so on. Again, this isn't
Father Fessio's pet theory; this is what the Council actually says. Paragraph
112 adds, "Sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion
as it is the more closely connected with the liturgical action itself."
This reinforces my point.
Paragraph 114 adds: "The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and
fostered with great care." Then in paragraph 116 we find another shocker:
"The Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially suited to the Roman
Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride
of place in liturgical services." That's what the Council actually said.
If you are in a parish which prides itself on living the spirit of Vatican
II, then you should be singing Gregorian chant at your parish. And if
you're not singing the Gregorian Chant, you're not following the specific
mandate of the Second Vatican Council.
Now, just a little footnote on the Gregorian Chant. In reflecting on these
things about Church music, I began to think about the Psalms a few years
back. And a very obvious idea suddenly struck me. Why it didn't come earlier
I don't know, but the fact is that the Psalms are songs. Every one of
the 150 Psalms is meant to be sung; and was sung by the Jews. When this
thought came to me, I immediately called a friend, a rabbi in San Francisco
who runs the Hebrew School, and I asked, "Do you sing the Psalms at your
synagogue?" "Well, no, we recite them," he said. "Do you know what they
sounded like when they were sung in the Old Testament times and the time
of Jesus and the Apostles?" I asked. He said, "No, but why don't you call
this company in Upstate New York. They publish Hebrew music, and they
may know."
So, I called the company and they said, "We don't know; call 1-800-JUDAISM."
So I did. And I got an information center for Jewish traditions, and they
didn't know either. But they said, "You call this music teacher in Manhattan.
He will know." So, I called this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan and we had
a long conversation. At the end, I said, "I want to bring some focus to
this, can you give me any idea what it sounded like when Jesus and his
Apostles sang the Psalms?" He said, "Of course, Father. It sounded like
Gregorian Chant. You got it from us."
I was amazed. I called Professor William Mart, a Professor of Music at
Stanford University and a friend. I said, "Bill, is this true?" He said,
"Yes. The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody and psalmody."
So, you know something? If you sing the Psalms at Mass with the Gregorian
tones, you are as close as you can get to praying with Jesus and Mary.
They sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today in Gregorian
Chant.
So, the Council isn't calling us back to some medieval practice, those
"horrible" medieval times, the "terrible" Middle Ages, when they knew
so little about liturgy that all they could do was build a Chartres Cathedral.
(When I see cathedrals and churches built that have a tenth of the beauty
of Notre Dame de Paris, then I will say that the liturgists have the right
to speak. Until then, they have no right to speak about beauty in the
liturgy.) But my point is that at the time of Notre Dame de Paris in the
13th century, the Psalms tones were already over a thousand years old.
They are called Gregorian after Pope Gregory I, who reigned from 590 to
604. But they were already a thousand years old when he reigned. He didn't
invent Gregorian chant; he reorganized and codified it and helped to establish
musical schools to sing it and teach it. It was a reform; it wasn't an
invention. Thus, the Council really calls us back to an unbroken tradition
of truly sacred music and gives such music pride of place.
The last thing I want to quote from the Council is paragraph 128, which
talks about sacred art and sacred furnishings: "Along with the revisions
of liturgical books . . . there is to be an earlier revision of the canons
and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provisions of material things
involved in sacred worship. These laws refer especially to the worthy
and well-planned construction of sacred buildings, the shape and construction
of altars, the nobility, placing and safety of the Eucharistic tabernacle,
the dignity and suitability of the baptistery . . ." and so on.
What the Council Didn't Say
That's essentially what the Second Vatican Council actually said about
the renewal of the liturgy. Let me tell you what it did not say. The Council
did not say that tabernacles should be moved from their central location
to some other location. In fact, it specifically said we should be concerned
about the worthy and dignified placing of the tabernacle. The Council
did not say that Mass should be celebrated facing the people. That is
not in Vatican II; it is not mentioned. It is not even raised in the documents
that record the formation of the Constitution on the Liturgy; it didn't
come up. Mass facing the people is a not requirement of Vatican II; it
is not in the spirit of Vatican II; it is definitely not in the letter
of Vatican II. It is something introduced in 1969.
And, by the way, never in the history of the Church, East or West, was
there a tradition of celebrating Mass facing the people. Never, ever,
until 1969. It happened occasionally in Germany, in between the wars;
it was done sometimes at the castle where Romano Guardini would have his
group of students meet; it was done in Austria near Vienna by Pius Parsch
in a special church, in what he called a "liturgical Mass." That's an
odd expression, a "liturgical Mass." The Mass is the liturgy.
But in any event, I can say without fear of contradiction from anyone
who knows the facts that there is simply no tradition whatsoever, in the
history of the Church, of Mass facing the people. Now, is it a sin? No.
Is it wrong? No. Is it permitted? Yes. It is required? Not at all. In
fact in the Latin Roman Missal, which is the typical edition that all
the translations of the Missal are based on (not always translated properly,
but at least based on it) the rubrics actually presuppose the Mass facing
East, the Mass facing the Lord.
Now, for the first 25 years of my priesthood, I celebrated Mass like you
see it when you go to a typical parish: in English, facing the people.
It can be done reverently; I've seen it done reverently; I've tried to
do it reverently myself. But the last three years, after study and reflection,
I've changed. I actually think the Mass facing the people is a mistake.
But, even if it's not, at least this much we can say: there is no permission
required to say Mass facing God, facing the tabernacle, facing East, facing
with the people. And it should be given equal rights, it seems
to me, with Mass facing the people. It's been around for 1800 years at
least, and it should be allowed to continue. I happen to think it's symbolically
richer.
It's true that when the priest faces the people for the celebration of
the Eucharistic Sacrifice, there may be a sense of greater unity as a
community. But there is also a danger of the priest being the performer
and you being the spectator - precisely what the Council did not want:
priest performers and congregational spectators. But there is something
more problematic. You can see it, perhaps, by contrasting Mass facing
the people with Mass facing East or facing the Lord. I don't say Mass
"with my back to the people" anymore than Patton went through Germany
with his "back to the soldiers." Patton led the Third Army across Germany
and they followed him to achieve a goal. The Mass is part of the Pilgrim
Church on the way to our goal, our heavenly homeland. This world is not
our heavenly homeland. We don't sit around in a circle and look at each
other. We want to look with each other and with the priest towards
the rising sun, the rays of grace, where the Son will come again in glory
on the clouds.
And so, in Mass celebrated in the traditional way, the priest does face
the people when he speaks on God's behalf to proclaim the Word and explain
it. And he does face the people when he receives their gifts. And then
he turns to face with the people and to offer those gifts up to our common
Father, praying that the Holy Spirit will come down and transform those
gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ. And when that most sacred act
takes place, the priest turns to offer the gifts back to the people. I
think that is much more dramatic. Whether I am right or not, all I'm asking
is a right to exist. If not peaceful coexistence, at least coexistence.
Now strange as it may appear, there is absolutely no permission required
to say Mass facing East. The Pope does it every morning in his chapel.
But there is such a taboo against it that most pastors would be afraid
to do it for fear they would be exiled to some lowly parish.
The Council also said nothing about moving the Tabernacle. It said nothing
about removing altar rails. It said nothing about taking out kneelers.
It said nothing about turning the altar around. It said nothing about
multiple canons. That, too, is an invention; a pure invention.
There has never been in the Church a choice of Eucharistic prayers at
a given ceremony or a given Church. In the East, there were two main Eucharistic
prayers. Generally, they were regionally different, or used on different
feasts. But in the Roman rite, the Latin rite, there has always been one
Eucharistic prayer. It was different in Milan, slightly; it was different
in Spain, slightly, the Mozarabic rite; and it was different in a few
other places - the Dominican Order and some others after the Middle Ages.
But there was only one canon, the Eucharistic Prayer, the Roman canon.
I happen to think it is the best. Not only because of the fact that when
I am saying it I am uniting myself with what was actually said by the
Fathers, and doctors, and saints, and mystics of the Church for hundreds
of years (more than a thousand years) - but because I think it is richer.
One problem, both at the time of the Council and after, is rationalism,
which the Holy Father has spoken against. This is the idea that we can
do it all with our own minds. The liturgists after the Council tried to
construct a more perfect liturgy. But you know something? When you've
grown up in a house and a room is added on and a story added on, a garage
is added on, it may not be architecturally perfect, but it's your home.
To destroy it and try to construct a new one out of steel and glass and
tile because that's the modern idea, is not the way you live a human life.
But that's what's happened to the liturgy.
Look at the other canons. First of all, when I celebrate Mass with the
Roman Canon, I've often had people come up and say, "What canon was that,
Father?" I say, "Well, that was the Roman Canon, the one that has been
used for about 1600 years." "Oh, I haven't heard that." Generally, you
get Canon Two. Why? Because it's the shortest. So, you can spend all kinds
of time with singing, and the commentators explaining things, and a long
homily, with big processions and greeters coming in and whatever else.
But for the Sacrifice of the Mass, the attitude seems to be "Let's get
that over as soon as we can with Canon Two."
Now, where did Canon Two come from? From what's called the Canon of Hyppolytus,
composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to
the Church and died a martyr. Around the year 215, he wrote an outline
of how Mass was celebrated in Rome. It was probably never used as a liturgical
text because in the early days of the Church there was no final, written
formalization of the liturgy, so this was an outline to be used by the
celebrant.
Thus, the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it
was, it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council,
which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should
be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, "Oh, let's
pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth."
That's not organic growth; that's archeologism, specifically criticized
by Pius XII in Mediator Dei.
The Third Canon was entirely made up. There has never been a canon like
the Third Canon in the history of the Church, except in bits and pieces.
Father Vagaggini, with the help of Father Bouyer, I believe, actually
constructed it using their knowledge of liturgical history, which was
enormous. But they totally invented the canon. It would be like taking
piece of a carrot, a piece of a tomato, a piece of a peach and a piece
of some tree, then putting them together and saying, "Well, you see that?
It's organic." But it's not organic; it's constructed.
Canon Four is based on an Eastern Egyptian canon, still used in the Eastern
Church; and so, there is some justification for it. But it's seldom used
today because you can't use it with any other prefaces; it has more or
less dropped by the wayside.
The point is that the Council did not call for a multiplication of canons,
and I think there are lots of other reasons for sticking with the Roman
canon. Nor did the Council, as I mentioned, abolish Latin. It specifically
mandated the retention of Latin and only permitted the use of the vernacular
in certain circumstances. And, finally, the Council did not prohibit Gregorian
Chant, as you might be led to think from its absence in your parishes.
The Council actually prescribed Gregorian Chant to have pride of place.
Pope John Paul II Addresses the Bishops
So, that is what the Council actually said. I've been saying this now
for several years. Because I've been saying it and other things, Archbishop
Weakland has called me a "papal maximalist," but a year and a few months
ago I was with him at an all-day meeting in Chicago on the liturgy. It
was a very congenial meeting, actually; there were eight or nine of us
there. And towards the end, they were discussing a document, the Pope's
address to the bishops of the Northwest in 1998. Remember, in 1998 all
the bishops of the United States went to Rome for their Ad Limina
visit. For one whole year, as each group of bishops came, the Holy Father
spoke to them on how to interpret the Second Vatican Council in a way
that will lead us into the Third Millennium.
It happened that when the bishops from the Northwest came from Alaska,
Washington, Oregon, Montana and Idaho - the Holy Father spoke on the liturgy.
Archbishop Weakland and others were not particularly happy with what the
pope said. And so I took the occasion in the afternoon to say to Archbishop
Weakland, "You know, Archbishop you've publicly called me a papal maximalist.
You published an article in America magazine in which you used that title
for me. But you know, I can't help it. The Pope keeps agreeing with me."
Here's what the Pope said to the bishops of the Northwestern United States:
"The two-thousandth anniversary of the birth of the Savior is a call to
all Christ's followers to seek a genuine conversion to God and a great
advance to holiness. Since the Liturgy is such a central part of the Christian
life, I wish today to consider some aspects of the liturgical renewal
so vigorously promoted by the Second Vatican Council, as the prime agent
of the wider renewal of Catholic life." So, the Council itself wanted
to renew Catholic life. And within that, it wanted to renew the liturgy.
The Pope is saying here that as we look toward the year 2000, we must
go back and see what the Council wanted for liturgical renewal, because
that is the prime agent of the wider renewal of Catholic life.
He continues: "To look back over what has been done in the field of liturgical
renewal since the Council is first to see many reasons for giving heartfelt
thanks and praise to the Most Holy Trinity for the marvelous awareness
which had developed among the faithful of their role and responsibility
in the priestly work of Christ and his Church. It is also to realize that
not all changes have always and everywhere been accompanied by the necessary
explanation and catechesis. As a result, in some cases there has been
a misunderstanding of the very nature of the Liturgy, leading to abuses,
polarization, sometimes even grave scandal."
The Pope generally speaks diplomatically, especially to bishops. These
are pretty hard words, and this is the introduction, so obviously he's
going to give some guidelines for avoiding this polarization, this grave
scandal and these abuses. He says, "After the experience of more than
thirty years of liturgical renewal we are well placed to assess both the
strengths and weaknesses of what has been done . . ." (listen carefully
now)" . . . in order more confidently to plot our course into the future,
which God has in mind for His cherished people." The Pope, here, speaks
to our bishops, looking toward the new millennium and says, in effect,
Here is what I think is the plan God has for all of his people as we
move to the next millennium. And, specifically, here is the liturgical
blueprint that, I, the Holy Father, believe we are to follow.
"The challenge now," he continues, "is to move beyond whatever misunderstandings
there have been and to reach the proper point of balance, especially by
entering more deeply into the contemplative dimension of worship, which
includes a sense of awe, reverence and adoration which are fundamental
attitudes in our relationship with God."
What does the Pope say we must do to restore balance? Enter more deeply
into the contemplative dimension of worship. Can you contemplate when
you've got drummers up in the sanctuary? Where do we find the sense of
awe? Not in this "chatty" stuff at Mass: "Good morning, everybody."
Does that inspire a sense of awe? "Have a nice day." The Pope mentions
reverence and adoration. Standing is a sign of respect; but kneeling is
a sign of adoration. The Pope says we must restore the sense of adoration.
The Pope says to the liturgists and the bishops, "The Eucharist gathers
and builds the human community, but it is also ิthe worship of the Divine
Majesty'." That's from Sacrosanctum Concilium, paragraph 33. He
continues: "It is subjective in that it depends radically upon what the
worshippers bring to it, but it is objective in that it transcends them
as the priestly act of Christ himself to which he associates us, but which
ultimately does not depend upon us."
This is why it's so important that liturgical law be respected: an objective
act is taking place. "The priest, who is the servant of the liturgy and
not its inventor or producer, has a particular responsibility in this
regard, lest he empty the liturgy of its true meaning or obscure its sacred
character," says the Holy Father.
Then he talks about "The core of the mystery of Christian worship." Is
the core of the mystery of Christian worship a sense that we are the people
of God? Is it feeling united with each other? Spiritual bonding? Not according
to the Pope, who says, "The core of the mystery of Christian worship is
the Sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father and the work of the Risen
Christ who sanctifies his people through the liturgical sign." The sacrifice
of Christ, sanctification. That's what the Pope says. Remember, he's looking
now to lead the Church in the new millennium liturgically. He continues:
"It is, therefore, essential that in seeking to enter more deeply into
the contemplative depths of worship, the inexhaustible mystery of the
priesthood of Jesus Christ be fully acknowledged and respected."
There is a movement to refer to the celebrant as the "presider," instead
of the "celebrant" or the "priest." Now it's true, he is a presider. But
that's an abstraction; and I think there's an agenda behind the abstraction.
You see, all the Sacraments need someone who presides: at Confirmation,
at the Eucharist, at Confession - and at Baptism. And who can preside
at Baptism? The priest is the ordinary minister and presider, but under
certain unusual circumstances a layman - man or woman - and even a non-Catholic
can preside at Baptism. And, so, I believe some people want to get us
in the habit of thinking of the priest as a presider primarily because
that's an abstract term, which could include women.
What does the Pope say about the matter? "The priest, therefore, is not
just one who presides, but one who acts in the person of Christ." You
see, only the priest can act in persona Christi capitis, in the
name of the Bridegroom (Jesus) over against the Bride (the Church) in
the nuptial act, which is the Mass.
Full, Conscious and Active Participation
The Holy Father next discusses three attributes of the liturgy: full,
conscious and active participation. Remember that I began by reading paragraph
14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which states that the purpose of the Council
in renewing the liturgy was to achieve full, conscious, active participation?
Well, those words can have different meanings. It is very interesting
to find out what the Pope thinks they mean, as he tells us what he believes
God is calling the Church to do in the liturgy in the new millennium.
First, he talks about the fullness of participation. "The sharing of all
the baptized in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ is the key to understanding
the Church's call for full, conscious and active participation. Full participation
certainly means that every member of the community has a part to play
in the liturgy. And in this respect, a great deal has been achieved in
parishes and communities across your land. But, full participation does
not mean that everyone does everything. Since this would lead to a clericalizing
of the laity and a laicizing of the priesthood, and this was not what
the Council had in mind."
What does he mean by "clericalizing the laity"? It's the idea that, for
example, the lector, the server at the altar, or the cross-bearer participates
more actively than the mother with her child in the back of church. It's
the idea that being more like the priest in the sanctuary somehow makes
you participate more fully. But the Pope says no to that idea. No, the
"clericalizing of the laity" and the "laicizing of the clergy," whereby
the priest doesn't do priestly things but sits while lay people are distributing
the Eucharist, are not what the Council had in mind, says the Pope.
"The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic,"
he says. Not concentric and egalitarian, but hierarchical and polyphonic:
"Respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the
different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise." I'm not saying
there shouldn't be lectors and acolytes, and so on. There should be. But
the point is, it's not how close you get to the altar that determines
how fully you participate. If that were the case, then those who aren't
ministers of some sort at Mass would be second-class participants. That's
not what the Council meant, says the Pope, by full participation.
Then the Pope comes to active participation. "Active participation certainly
means that in gesture, word, song, and service all the members of the
community take part in an active worship, which is anything but inert
or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity
of silence, stillness, and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers
are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily
or following the prayers of the celebrant and the chants in music of the
Liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are
in their own way, profoundly active. In a culture that neither favors
nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned
only with difficulty. Here we see the liturgy, though it must always be
properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural."
Especially in our noisy world, we need to have silence. Especially in
our world where it is hard to pray, we need to have contemplative adoration.
In a world that doesn't respect the liturgical cycles and seasons, we
need to celebrate the Feast of the Ascension on a Thursday, not on a Sunday.
Precisely because we have to be counter-cultural, we need to say there's
something more important than the workday. It's our feast day.
Finally, the Holy Father discusses conscious participation. He says, "Conscious
participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed
in the mysteries of the liturgy" - the Council's main instruction - "lest
the experience of worship degenerate into a form of ritualism. But it
does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to make the
implicit explicit, since this often leads to verbosity and informality
which are alien to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of worship."
Conscious participation, then, is not a multiplication of commentators
telling us what's happening as the Mass goes along; it's not laid back
informality and the trivializing of the liturgy. That's why I think it
may seem like a small thing, but it's a very bad to begin a liturgy by
saying, "Good morning, everyone." That's not how you begin a sacred
liturgy. You begin a sacred liturgy, "In the Name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," or better yet, "In nomine
Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."
The Holy Father continues: "Nor does conscious participation mean the
suppression of all subconscious experience, which is vital in a liturgy
which thrives on symbols that speak to the subconscious, just as they
speak to the conscious. The use of the vernacular has certainly opened
up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part." There is, then,
a positive value to the vernacular. "But," the Holy Father continues,
"this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially, the Chants
which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman rite, should
be wholly abandoned."
What, then, does the Pope say about full, conscious, active participation?
That it should be hierarchical, that there should be quiet, and worship
in awe and reverence, and that there should be a place for Latin and,
certainly for Chant in the liturgy. I submit to you that in most parishes
across this country that's not what you habitually find at the ordinary
Masses for the people. Thus, although the Pope doesn't say it in so many
words, he is of the opinion that the way Mass is currently celebrated
doesn't conform fully to the mandates of the Council, as intended by the
Church for the next century.
We have now two extremes and a moderate position. One extreme position
is the kind of informal Mass, all in English, facing the people, with
contemporary music, which does not at all correspond with what the Council
had in mind. But it is legitimate, it is permitted; it is not wrong. And
we have on the other extreme those who have returned, with permission,
to the Mass of 1962 and, as others have noted, it is thriving and growing.
But it is not what the Council itself specifically had in mind, although
it is the Mass of the ages.
Then you have the moderates. Those in the middle. Me and a few others.
But I am going to insist on my right as a Catholic and as priest to celebrate
the liturgy according to the Council, according to the presently approved
liturgical books, to celebrate a form of the Mass that therefore needs
no special permission-and which in fact cannot be prohibited-what I've
called "the Mass of Vatican II."
This essay appeared in the September/October 2000 issue of Catholic
Dossier and is based on a lecture on the liturgy given by Father Fessio
in May, 1999.
Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles:
• Foreword to
U.M. Lang's Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer
| Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Music and Liturgy | From The Spirit of the Liturgy
| Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer |
From The Spirit of the Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Walking
To Heaven Backward | Interview with Father Jonathan Robinson of the
Oratory
• Rite and Liturgy
| Denis Crouan, STD
• The Liturgy
Lived: The Divinization of Man | Jean Corbon, OP
• The Mass of Vatican
II | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
• Liturgy, Catechesis,
and Conversion | Barbara Morgan
• Understanding
The Hierarchy of Truths | Douglas Bushman, STL
• The Eucharist:
Source and Summit of Christian Spirituality | Mark Brumley
• Eucharistic
Adoration: Reviving An Ancient Tradition | Valerie Schmalz
Fr. Joseph D. Fessio, S.J. is the founder of Ignatius Press.
He entered the Jesuit Novitiate in 1961 and was ordained a priest in 1972.
He completed his undergraduate work in philosophy at Gonzaga University
in 1966 and earned two Master’s degrees (philosophy, theology) from
the same institution. He received a Doctorate in Theology in 1975 University
of Regensburg, West Germany, where his thesis director was Fr.
Joseph Ratzinger. Fr. Fessio’s thesis was on the ecclesiology
of Hans Urs von Balthasar.
Fr. Fessio taught philosophy at Gonzaga and the University of Santa Clara,
California and theology at the University of San Francisco before founding
the Saint Ignatius Institute at the University of San Francisco in 1976.
Two years later he founded Ignatius Press. He is now Provost of Ave Maria University in Florida
If you'd like to receive the FREE IgnatiusInsight.com
e-letter (about every 2 to 3 weeks), which includes regular updates
about IgnatiusInsight.com articles, reviews, excerpts, and author appearances,
please click here to sign-up today!