|
CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 4, 1963 46. Besides the commission on the sacred liturgy, every diocese, as far as possible, should have commissions for sacred music and sacred art. These three commissions must work in closest collaboration; indeed it will often be best to fuse the three of them into one single commission. Paragraph 46 appears innocent enough, but since the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium in 1963, there have been few matters more fiercely argued than liturgical art and environment, in terms of who is authorized to make artistic decisions, who is qualified to make such decisions, and the end products themselves: the buildings, the music, the rites. Paragraphs 112-121 go into the music issue more specifically but with the idea that conferences of bishops will develop specific guidelines after the Council. In the United States the USCCB issued its most recent and detailed directives on sacred music, Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship, in November 2007. I am grateful that the Diocese of Yakima, Washington, has paid for the rights to publish the full document on-line; it is a worthy addition to your resource library. I must make two admissions here: I devoted much of my life between 1984 and 1988 to the construction of a new church, from first draft to dedication, and I would be lying if I denied I got burned in the process precisely by following the liturgical laws then in effect, one example being the regulation calling for a cross—not a crucifix—in the sanctuary. Second, I am in general agreement with Thomas Day’s controversial critique, Why Catholics Can’t Sing (1992, 2013). Day’s 1992 work was a serious yet humorous critique of the music and general shoddiness of American Catholic liturgy after Vatican II. His 2013 edition has been redacted to reflect a general fatigue on matters of worship in the recent past. One reviewer of Day’s 2013 edition quotes a Catholic convert friend describing the twenty-first century Mass as a “long and very very sleepy campfire.” I rarely say that a statement is “point blank wrong,” but para. 46’s assertion that liturgists, artists, and musicians essentially sit as equal planners at the table has caused considerable post-Council unrest. I lived through the immediate post-Council era and worked at it from the musical side. I did not have the liturgical training I would later get, but that was not recognized as a problem until, as Day argues, a mediocre practice was well established. We operated back then on very basic principles of theology--pop psychology, really--such as “get everybody singing;” or “build togetherness.” Our writing and usage of music reflected those basic goals without much thought to the quality of music as music. Coupled with that was the arrogance of the young and the restless, leading to the old joke, “What is the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.” Sacrosanctum Concilium would lay out principles in subsequent paragraphs—as would our own USCCB—that might have eased difficulties in the period of the liturgical reform. There was, for all the radical changes envisioned in SC, a respect for the past, as the use of Latin within considered parameters, including Gregorian Chant. There were priorities established for the use of music at Mass, with emphasis upon the parts of the Mass themselves, such as the “Holy Holy” and the “Gloria.” Historians will look back and wonder how the U.S. Church drifted from singing the Mass itself to the now-famous “four hymn sandwich.” [Or, in my parish, the four-hymn communion rite.] The term “four hymn sandwich” refers to the American practice of filling the Mass with composed songs, which runs counter to universal church law that places emphasis upon singing the parts of the Mass and the Psalms. The fathers of the Church who approved para. 46 in 1963 can be credited with opening some important doors. The first was a recognition that art, in Aristotle’s famous definition in the Poetics as an experience of cleansing the senses or catharsis, is part and parcel of worship. The second is recognition that Holy Orders, while it confers many duties and offices, does not turn an ordained priest into an interior designer or musical arranger. There is a subtle but real nudge here in SC for dioceses to hire and trust true experts, graduates with resumes and peer reviewed bodies of work. If nothing else, such professionals will save dioceses thousands of dollars in costs of correcting the eccentricities and personal tastes of pastors. Paragraph 46 is also a statement of sorts regarding the purpose of music and structure: like the Gospel, liturgy is a challenge, a movement from the comfortable to the challenging. The basis Greek meaning of “liturgy” is work, or public works. Liturgy will always be something of a struggle between peace of mind and the call of the cross, presenting an on-going challenge to both preacher and artist. Thomas Day’s 1992 work cited above coins the phrase “mad scramble” in the context of the years immediately following the Council to meet the demands of full participation in the Mass. (p. 94) In that scramble, art lost out to pragmatism and enthusiasm, and here in 2017 the Church continues the search for balance of sense and song in worship that makes the Eucharistic reenactment a true catharsis and not a sleepy campfire.
0 Comments
As I have too many Christmas cards to write, there will be no Saturday Liturgy post today. I hope to be back on the beam next Saturday. Thanks for your patience. The December 21 Reformation post did go up this morning on the Thursday stream.
CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 4, 1963 45. For the same reason every diocese is to have a commission on the sacred liturgy under the direction of the bishop, for promoting the liturgical apostolate. Sometimes it may be expedient that several dioceses should form between them one single commission which will be able to promote the liturgy by common consultation. 46. Besides the commission on the sacred liturgy, every diocese, as far as possible, should have commissions for sacred music and sacred art. These three commissions must work in closest collaboration; indeed it will often be best to fuse the three of them into one single commission. The term was not invented back then, but Paragraphs 45 and 46 would certainly fall under the rubric of “dreamers and doers.” The Fathers of Vatican II envisioned collaborative bodies in each diocese for promoting “the liturgical apostolate.” The term liturgical apostolate has a rich history dating long before the Council, to the pontificate of Pius X (r. 1903-1914). Pius articulated a pastoral theology which centered around active faith and participation in the Eucharist; he moved the age of First Communion from adolescence to the age of seven and encouraged frequent communion, for which he was criticized as “encouraging irreverence.” After his death in 1914 Pius became the inspiration for those who wished to foster greater understanding of the Mass and areas of active participation. In the United States, the center of liturgical renewal would become St. John’s Benedictine Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota. In 1926 the Abbey began publication of the liturgical journal Orate Fratres (“Pray, Brethren”) later renamed Worship, its current title. I have a link here from the University of Notre Dame from September 20, 2012 to a pair of essays on the first issue of Orate Fratres in 1926, entitled “Re-reading Orate Fratres: The American Liturgical Movement is Born (1926-27).” What may surprise you is the vision and energy of liturgical reformers which predates Vatican II by decades. The “new Mass” is not quite the break from our history that some make it out to be. Paras. 45 and 46 are an effort to bring something of St. John’s Abbey into the future renewal of the sacraments beginning in 1963. Para. 45 calls for a diocesan commission under the direction of the bishop “for promoting the liturgical apostolate.” This was the “dream;” the “doing” was something else. For starters, in the United States there were very few “experts” on liturgy [i.e., those with advanced degrees], so few that I can probably name most of them in the 1970’s. Father Regis Duffy, my fellow friar, had just finished his studies a year or two before teaching me in 1973. [I had Regis twice—once in high school where he taught Gregorian Chant and turned down my offer to join the seminary choir, and later in graduate school as Dr. Duffy where he turned down my impoverished professional papers on liturgy. A true gentleman, Regis could say no very kindly, however.] Some years later we looked back on those days with mirth as we shared a drink at Notre Dame. Regis was the keynote speaker at a national liturgical convention hosted by ND in the late 1970's. Although a fulltime professor at the Washington Theological Union [my school] and later Notre Dame, he was in demand across the country for his insights into the reform of the liturgy. There were simply not enough competent souls nationwide to advise and form the bishops and dioceses in an overall theology of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the history of renewal. Some dioceses sent a priest for higher studies here in the states or overseas. But for the most part, particularly by the 1970’s, dioceses depended upon its newly ordained—those of us who studied after the Council--for advice and demonstration. As my student parish at Siena went home for Holy Week, I would help at our shrine churches in New England, and at one holiday assignment the pastor/superior assigned me celebrant for the entire Triduum at his large downtown church. I was ordained about a year or two, and people gave me credit for expertise I honestly hadn’t earned yet. When bishops established liturgical commissions per para. 45, the bodies were composed of priests with interest and perhaps some “early experimentation” with liturgical practices, which was common but surreptitious. One of the first challenges was assisting other local priests for whom the scope of the changes was overwhelming. The experience of celebrating Mass facing the people was a profound change for a priest with forty years’ experience celebrating toward the altar. The personality of the priest became a larger factor in participatory celebrations, and with the Council’s emphasis upon Scripture, the old sermon on morals gave way to a more evangelical communication of the Sunday readings. The 1960’s and 1970’s were a hard time for many priests. Diocesan liturgical committees did as much as they could to provide information to priests and liturgical ministers on the directives issuing from Rome. Part of their agenda was overall supervision of experimentation, particularly if a complaint had come to the bishop’s attention. I was flagged a few times—and once to Rome. In that case, when I was teaching sacramental renewal in a diocesan program (as an “expert” of course), I had said that the new rite of Penance, because of its length, was probably not suitable for use five minutes before Mass. What Rome was quoted was my alleged claim that it was wrong to go to confession before Mass. I wrote my defense to the Sacred Congregation of Rites and have heard nothing about it in 32 years, but you never know. Thus, para. 45 was implemented unevenly from diocese to diocese and even parish to parish. The general principles were “getting the people involved” and “catching up with the times.” The liturgy took on the look of a volunteer army, eager for the most part but lacking in basic military science. There was considerable opposition to the “new Mass” among those who felt the Tridentine Rite was a superior product. But it is also fair to say that the liturgical renewal in some places was undertaken in an insensitive and shoddy way, as I will discuss next Saturday. Another issue that plagued Para. 45 was the different interpretation of the Vatican directives by neighboring bishops. The most humorous case involved Philadelphia, where the practice of the Saturday evening vigil Mass was not approved by its cardinal when other dioceses introduced the practice around 1970. (Bishops enjoyed discretionary authority.) As a result, many Philadelphia Catholics crossed the Ben Franklin Bridge into the Camden, N.J. diocese on Saturday nights, and the Jersey pastors were more than happy to receive their offerings. Collaborative regional liturgical planning was sometimes more dreamed than done; that is still true today. Another responsibility of diocesan liturgical commissions was overseeing the renovations and constructions of new churches to the demands of the rites as mandated by the Council. I have not really talked much about para. 46, the participation of musicians and artists in liturgical planning, and there is enough to deal with in that paragraph that I will address the matter in full next Saturday. CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 4, 1963 43. Zeal for the promotion and restoration of the liturgy is rightly held to be a sign of the providential dispositions of God in our time, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church. It is today a distinguishing mark of the Church's life, indeed of the whole tenor of contemporary religious thought and action. So that this pastoral-liturgical action may become even more vigorous in the Church, the sacred Council decrees: 44. It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice. So far as possible the commission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters, and including laymen as circumstances suggest. Under the direction of the above-mentioned territorial ecclesiastical authority the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary experiments whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See. Paragraphs 43-46 compose a subset called “The Promotion of Pastoral-Liturgical Action.” Paragraphs 45 and 46 will deal with local advisory councils or liturgy committees, and inclusion of artists. Looking back a half-century later, it is hard to pinpoint the precise focus of this section. Para. 43 states that promotion and reform of the liturgy is a sign of the working of the Holy Spirit, while para. 44 decrees the establishment of a liturgical commission at the level of national conferences of bishops, composed of true professionals, to oversee changes at the regional/national level required by the revisions of sacramental rites established by the Holy See after the Council. This section of SC illustrates as much as any the collision of ideals and hopes with the reality on the ground. Para. 43, truth be told, was a hope as much as a fact, and it was directed primarily to the bishops themselves. In the Conciliar debates over Sacrosantum Concilium, a healthy number of Church Fathers expressed reservations about the principles of reform on the floor. The bishop of the largest diocese in the United States, Cardinal Spellman of New York, expressed his sentiment that the Tridentine Mass remain in place, and he was hardly alone. Most American bishops, for example, were reasonably good—in many cases excellent—administrators, but few were either theologians or social scientists. In news reporting during the Council era, it was common to describe the rare bishop from academia as “a theologian in his own right.” A bishop with advanced degrees in theology from Catholic University, Notre Dame, or a European university would be well versed in biblical and liturgical science, and probably had a subscription to Worship, the journal of liturgical research and renewal published in the U.S. since 1928. The postwar years in the United States were a time of brick and mortar growth, as returning GI’s married and began raising families. Enrollment in Catholic schools crested at all-time highs when Vatican II was convoked in 1962, and bishops were under pressure to meet the practical demands of pastoring and keeping seminarians flowing through the diocesan seminary pipelines. Many of these men were anxious about the annual three-month commitment of time to the Council that kept them away from duties in their home dioceses. Gradually they began to realize that the matters of the Council, particularly para. 44 noted here, would fall into their laps nationally and at the diocesan level at Council’s end. In this context para. 43 looks like support for the task ahead. The USCCB, the American body to whom para. 44 is addressed, does have an on-line review of its involvement with the Council, “Stewards of the Tradition—Fifty Years after Sacrosanctum Concilium,” released in 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of SC. I would describe it as “administratively upbeat.” Looking back to the immediate years after the Council, there is little argument against the reality that many local churches were running ahead of administrative oversight and delving into experimentation in many ways, some good, some not so good. One of the first important collective acts of the American bishops was the establishment of ICEL, the company entrusted with producing English-language texts for the sacraments from the Roman Latin originals. One factor of Vatican II, hard to convey today, is the air of excitement among many Catholics and the apprehensions of others. Religious orders are a good place to look. I can remember one of my Scripture professors at the time commenting on the sisters he knew. “They read, they read late into the night, they read every theology text coming on the market.” Vatican II’s Perfectae Caritatis had encouraged religious communities to return to the founding principles of their orders, which in many cases involved direct involvement with the poor and the faithful at large. As has been documented numerous times, Catholic sisters began leaving the classrooms of Catholic schools in significant numbers for responsibilities in the larger parish or in ministries of social need. Many became directors of liturgy or catechetics, both new positions after Vatican II. In like manner, the Council’s call for a simpler rite of Eucharist with greater lay involvement and the use of the vernacular, reception of communion in the hand, and the sharing of the communion cup was greeted enthusiastically. SC had provided the principles but not the actual rites, which would come 5-15 years down the road. (The Mass of Pope Paul VI was promulgated in 1970.) Since the younger clergy at my seminary were well-formed by the Council, and a few had even studied overseas, liturgical renewal of the Mass began there well before the directives started coming down. Even as the Council was closing in 1965 some of our priests were celebrating Mass in English and introducing participatory psalm singing, and even sharing the cup. This would happen in our “class masses,” itself an innovation to foster the communal nature of the Mass. The student body chapel Mass was somewhat slower to change, though I remember in 1967 the first concelebrated Mass in my seminary—when my professors nearly all celebrated the same Mass together. I was the sacristan for that Mass. From what I saw and what I was told, such reform adaptations were common in other seminaries and parishes long before the administrative “green flag” was thrown. The dangers in speedy adaptations are understandable enough: changes were made without good catechesis or instruction; little consideration was given to Catholics whose Mass piety was deeply rooted in the Latin Tridentine rite; even within parishes and seminaries there were priests and other officials deeply divided over the principles of change or the way they were carried out. There were several legendary tales of liturgical excess in the Washington, D.C., area during my years there (1969-74) including a celebrant who rode down the center of the church aisle at the Palm Sunday Mass on a donkey. But as we will see next week, nearly the entire American Church was in “catch-up mode,” including bishops, priests, and laity. The role of the bishop after the Council was often one of restraining excesses. Para. 45 and 46 will look more closely at the kinds of skill expected for liturgical reform. I can speak for myself and admit that in the late 1960’s and on through my college chaplain years as a priest that I was riding a “wave of enthusiasm” without enough training in the many facets of excellent worship. On the other hand, some of the excesses embodied sentiments that helped the Church, particularly an attitude of inclusivity and welcome. That I have no regrets about. |
LITURGY
August 2024
|
RSS Feed