ho HtX<nnj£> , ^\red^W<>k^-
C C <x.\roj

c-i I

Cji /=?£>e ^7o7
Th

THE

COEJIMCIL AND

THE

EITURGY

by

Reverend

Frederick R. McManus

NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE





THE COUNCIL

AND THE LITURGY
A Commentary on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

by

Reverend Frederick R. McManus

Director of the Secretariat of the

U.S. Bishops’ Commission on the Liturgical Apostolate

and peritus of Vatican Council II

NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005



BeacfdSflecJ



7 1 75(i«

THE COUNCIL

AND THE LITURGY

by

Reverend Frederick R. McManus

i

THE COUNCIL’S FIRST ACT

By enacting the Second Vatican Council’s first document, the

Constitution on worship or liturgy, Pope Paul VI and the other

bishops made concrete Pope John’s goal in summoning the coun-

cil—to renew the Church, to bring the Church’s ways up to date.

The liturgical constitution went into effect for the whole

Church on February 16, 1964, the first Sunday of Lent; the wait-

ing period was to enable clergy and faithful to become acquainted

with the Council’s statement. The importance of reading and study-

ing the document is obvious. In it the Council’s motives and

plans are made perfectly clear.

This lengthy document—it runs to more than 12,000 words

—

is the real beginning of reform within the Church. It affects the

1



single occasion when Catholics come together every week, the

Sunday morning Mass. It confronts what has been called the

“Sunday morning crisis”—congregations that are uninvolved or
indifferent, rites that are routine or unintelligible.

Four hundred years to the day after the 1563 closing of the

Council of Trent, Pope Paul and the other Fathers of the present

Council decreed and issued this new Constitution. The historical

parallel goes deeper.

On December 4, 1563, the bishops at Trent entrusted to the

pope the task of revising the official missal—and thus revising the
Mass text and rites.

On December 4, 1963, a similar but much broader revision

was initiated, this time with careful directives and explanations of

the reasons for the renewal.

The Constitution spells out clearly the mind of the Church

concerning the renewal of its public worship. But the practically

minded have an immediate question about the Constitution’s effects:

How soon can we expect all the Mass texts to be in English? How

soon can we expect the revision of the sacramental rites?

Part of the answer—the time element—involves risky specu-
lation. A better answer is to describe the Council’s legislation on
the liturgy under four rough headings

:

(1) Doctrinal. Each of the seven chapters of the Constitu-

tion on worship has an important doctrinal introduction. In the

first chapter, for example, there is a fundamental section on the

nature of public worship and its significance in the Church’s whole

life. The Council explains that the liturgy continues Christ’s

priestly action in all the members of the Church, how Christ acts

in every liturgical celebration, that “the liturgy is the summit toward

which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it

is the fount from which all her power flows.”

The faithful, says the Council, “must be convinced that the

pre-eminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active

participation of all God’s holy people in these liturgical celebrations,

2



especially in the same Eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar,

at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of

priests and by his ministers.” In similar language the other sacra-

ments, the daily prayer or office, and the Church year are explained.

All this, amounting in text to perhaps one-third of the docu-

ment, should become the ordinary teaching of the Church without

delay. There was no “waiting period” until it became true or went

into effect. Rather it sums up and crystallizes Catholic doctrine

on sacred worship; it should be the starting point for priests and

teachers in their explanation of the Church as a worshiping

community.

(2) Disciplinary . Under this heading come the norms which

became effective on February 16, 1964. They demand the instruc-

tion of the people and their full participation in the liturgy now,

irrespective of future changes or the introduction of the vernacular

languages into worship; they give directions for revised seminary

training, so that both studies and spiritual life will center about

the mystery of Christ the Lord celebrated in the liturgy, for the

training of priests already in the ministry, for the work of diocesan

liturgical commissions. In some cases, the regulations are specific,

insisting, for example, on the preaching of sermons at all Sunday

and holyday Masses when the people are present, commending

preaching at Masses on other days, etc.

While the natural tendency is to look ahead to changes and

reforms, the task of liturgical education and liturgical participation

is immediate, and much of the Constitution from the Council deals

with such promotion, because “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.”

( 3 ) Episcopal. Much has been written about the authority of

the groups of bishops in the different countries, regions, or terri-

tories of the world. The liturgy Constitution changes the rule of

the past which reserved the regulation of public worship rather

strictly to the Holy See.

The most important instance of this affects the use of the

mother tongues in the liturgy. Such concessions have been made

3



by the Council itself, but only on condition that the bodies of

bishops, acting collectively, take advantage of the concession for

their respective territory. Thus these provisions of the Constitution

did not go into effect immediately, but only when the bishops

take action.

So far as the United States is concerned, a preliminary

announcement was made at once. The American bishops agreed,

before leaving Rome after the Council session, to adopt and accept

the Constitution’s concessions in the matter of language. A general
meeting of the Bishops was later held, on April 2, 1964, in Wash-

ington, when formal approval was decreed for official English

translations of liturgical texts.

(4) Papal. The final category comprises the Council’s man-

date directed not to the Church at large but to a commission which

was set up by the Pope (in January of 1964) to revise the missal,

breviary, ritual, etc. The Council has decided the principles and the

chief points; the implementation must wait until details are

worked out.

Here conjecture is almost useless. It is easy to predict the

kinds of changes in the rite of Mass or in the sacramental services;

these are clearly indicated in the Constitution or in the writings

of experts. What is uncertain is the length of time needed: only

a few months for broad changes, certainly several years for the

complete revision of the service books of the liturgy.

The whole picture of the Council’s liturgical renewal may be

quickly summed up. Its doctrine on worship should be studied

and preached now. Its discipline took effect on February 16, 1964,

above all in the active participation of the people. Two aspects

of the Constitution require additional action: the use of the

vernacular depends on the body of bishops of each nation; the

ritual reform depends on precise decisions to be made by authority

of the Pope.

In quantity and quality the norms of the Constitution on

liturgical instruction and activity are even more important than

the reform. They are at the root of all efforts to renew the Church’s

spirit.

4



II

THE PARISH MASS

Full participation in the Mass and the sacraments must be

experienced, both by congregations and by their members as

individuals. Neither talking nor reading about the laity’s part in

Catholic worship is enough. The best theoretical preparation or

the soundest instruction will not take the place of actual celebration.

That is why the Second Vatican Council, in its Constitution

on the Liturgy, lists the parts of Catholic worship which the

people should say or sing: “acclamations, responses, psalmody,

antiphons, and songs . . And the participation of the laity is sup-

posed to be the primary aim, again according to the Council, not

only in the future “restoration” of the liturgy, but in its “promo-

tion” here and now.

The immediacy of this promotion was stressed by Pope

Paul VI on January 25, 1964, in his document on putting the

Constitution into effect and to work, and again in an Instruction

dated September 26, 1964. But there is an apparent obstacle:

The Council decreed that all the official service books

—

missal, ritual, etc.—should be revised by experts “from various
parts of the world.” But neither the Council’s requirement that

the work be done “as soon as possible” nor Pope Paul’s quick

announcement of the establishment of a commission for the same

purpose disguises the fact that this may be a long and compli-

cated task.

This is the source, in turn, of a temptation to postpone

liturgical participation in places where it has not yet been devel-

oped, to wait for the finished product of the liturgical reform. Such

action or inaction is of course just the opposite of what the bishops

decided almost unanimously at the Council.

Speculation about future changes is profitable and necessary,

but the Council’s immediate concern is “to promote the liturgical

instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in

the liturgy, both internally and externally.” Here and now the

5



ways to promote congregational participation are already clear

and definite, whatever the future holds:

Responses. These acclamations or responses are mentioned

first by the Council as the way in which the people express publicly

their part in the Church’s life of worship and prayer. At Mass there

are only six or eight different phrases of this kind, all simple, all

coming at key moments. If for the present some must be said

in Latin in the United States, at least they are not difficult for any

congregation anywhere.

The important thing about “Et cum spiritu tuo,” “Amen,”

etc., is this: Unless the people say or sing them at every Mass,

low Mass and high Mass, Sunday Mass and weekday Mass, it will

never be truly evident that “liturgical services pertain to the whole

body of the Church . . . manifest it and have effects upon it . . .

concern the individual members of the Church, in different ways,

according to their differing rank, office, and participation.”

Community prayers. Perhaps only a few congregations have

been able to recite (or sing) the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, and Agnus

Dei in Latin, but it is easy enough for them to pray these texts

together in English. In addition, the people may (and should)

say or sing the Lord’s Prayer before Communion.

The question presented by the Council’s teaching can be

expressed in the concrete: Is there any congregation, Sunday or

weekday, so inattentive or indifferent to holy Mass that it cannot

recite the Our Father with spiritual profit? Is there any parish

where the few words of the Sanctus in English are too difficult

to learn or to pray?

Readings in English. In recent years the reading of the Epistle

and Gospel in English while the priest says the Latin has become

common at Sunday Masses. Now, as logic and good sense demand,

the practice of employing a lector should be extended to weekday

Masses, too. This will help to achieve the Council’s proposal to

promote a “warm and living love for Scripture,” to provide “richer

fare for the faithful at the table of God’s word.” For the same

reason the Council recognized the “genuine liturgical function”

of lectors or readers (as well as of leaders of congregational

participation or “commentators”).

6



Hymns and psalms. In 1947, in 1955, and again just before

he died in 1958, Pope Pius XII tried to stir up interest in religious

singing by the people. The Constitution on the Liturgy makes the

same point, not only for devotional services but for the Mass.

Parish experience has translated this into a pattern of hymns or

psalms in English at low Mass: at the priest’s entrance and while

he says the preparatory prayers with the server; briefly, between

the Epistle and Gospel; at the Offertory; during Communion; after

the blessing.

Such a pattern is not necessarily possible at every Sunday

Mass, but a Communion hymn or a recessional hymn is not diffi-

cult, as a beginning. The purpose: to restore the sense of com-

munity worship, which the Mass is by its nature. Communal

celebration, says the Council, is to be preferred.

The pattern of singing, already familiar in many parishes,

has another advantage. It simplifies the Mass rite for the people

by not involving them in the secondary and rather private prayers

of the priest at the beginning of Mass, at the offertory, etc.

The Council’s Constitution has other features of renewal for

the parish Mass: daily homilies “from the sacred text,” obviously

very brief ones, to unfold God’s word to the congregation; partici-

pation in the Mass whereby “the faithful, after the priest’s Com-

munion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice . . .”

The fact is that not a single one of these many instances of

active, conscious participation by the people is dependent upon

future reforms and revisions, or upon the official introduction of

the mother tongues into the Catholic liturgy. All have an immediate

urgency if the renewal decreed by the Council is to be effective.

7



Ill

PUTTING THE CONSTITUTION
TO WORK

Pope Paul VI, in bringing into force the Ecumenical Council’s

Constitution on the Liturgy, made active and understanding congre-

gational participation in worship a primary goal.

Of the Constitution’s 130 sections, the first one singled out by

the Pope for immediate action and application is Article 19:

“With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the

liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participa-

tion in the liturgy both internally and externally, taking into account

their age and condition, their way of life, and standard of religious

culture. By so doing, pastors will be fulfilling one of the chief

duties of a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God; and in this

matter they must lead their flock not only in word but also by

example.”

These words sum up the Second Vatican Council’s rules for

“the promotion of liturgical instruction and active participation.”

And they were given first place in Pope Paul’s document of

January 25, 1964, on carrying out the Council’s plans. “By the

very nature of things” the directions for liturgical education and

participation “come into force immediately.”

When the Constitution on the Liturgy was promulgated on

December 4, 1963, at the public session which closed the second

session of the Council, a date was set for its regulations to become

effective and universal law of the Church: February 16, 1964,

the first Sunday of Lent. At the same time it was evident that

many of the Council’s decisions would have to be delayed still

longer—chiefly because they depend upon the revision of services,
texts, prayers, etc.

Most of parts of the Constitution which must wait further

and specific action are evident enough. For example, the bishops

decided that during Mass “a more representative portion of the

holy Scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a pre-

scribed number of years,” that is, in a kind of cycle.

8



Obviously, this provision cannot take effect until new lection-

aries and altar missals are prepared and published. To clarify any

doubts and to make sure that the liturgical renewal goes ahead

without delay, Pope Paul’s January 25 instruction deals with

several matters:

(1) Begging “all Christians and particularly all priests” to

study the text of the Constitution, the Holy Father urged bishops

and pastors in the strongest terms to teach the people how to take

part in the Church’s worship, with an understanding of its “strength

and inner value.”

(2) Next Pope Paul set up a special commission to carry out

the Council’s decisions—particularly by revising the service books,
such as the altar missal and ritual. Plans for this commission are

found in the Constitution itself: “The liturgical books,” says the

Council, “are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be

employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from

various parts of the world.”

(3) Finally the Pope settled specific questions and in a few

cases anticipated the reform of rites and services: immediate

permission to celebrate the sacraments of Confirmation and Matri-

mony during Mass—with special provision for Scripture readings
and the nuptial blessing even at marriages celebrated apart from

Mass; permission to suppress parts of the daily office of prayer,

in the case of those bound to pray The office, without waiting for

the revised texts.

Some specific directions given by the Pope insist on more

serious steps to be taken without delay:

—Establishment of diocesan liturgical commissions to pro-
mote understanding and active participation in public worship by

the people;

—the homily preached at Mass in which “the mysteries of
the Faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are

expounded from the sacred text”—recommended by the Council
as a part of any and every Mass; required, as of February 16,

at every Sunday and holy day Mass when a congregation is present;

—the teaching of the liturgy in seminaries and similar institu-
tions, to be revised according to the Council’s legislation.

9



Because the Second Vatican Council has not yet determined

with precision the role of “episcopal conferences” or bodies of

bishops in the different countries, the January 25 document of

Pope Paul gives temporary rules, made more specific in the Instruc-

tion of September 26, 1964: Such bodies, organized on a national

basis, must include all bishops of dioceses, and may include coad-

jutor and auxiliary bishops. The enactment of decrees requires a

two-thirds vote by secret ballot.

The importance of this rule lies in the authority conferred by

the Council itself upon such bodies of bishops in liturgical matters,

for example, in the introduction of the vernacular languages into

the liturgy.

It is only natural that most attention should be concentrated

upon future reforms, upon the commission set up to revise the

rite of Mass and the sacraments, and upon the few changes which

become effective without delay. Dramatic changes catch the eye; it

is all the harder to propose, as Pope Paul and the other bishops

have done, the broad program of study, instruction, education,

and formation.

Just as there was no waiting period before the Council’s

doctrine or teaching about the liturgy became official or effective,

so Pope Paul’s first point, even before setting up the commission

for liturgical reform, is the need for training and congregational

participation that is both interior and exteriorly expressed.

If any specific norm is the key to the others, it is the in-

sistence that Articles 15, 16, 17, of the Constitution be put into

effect immediately—that seminary programs be revised for the
next scholastic year.

The Council has called for a thorough reappraisal of the

Seminary teaching of dogmatic theology, Scripture, spiritual theol-

ogy, and pastoral theology—all to be unified in the exposition of
“the mystery of Christ and the history of salvation” which is cele-

brated in Christian worship. The liturgy, which is faith in action,

is to have new emphasis in the seminary program of studies and in

the seminary life of prayer.

All this stems from the Council’s recognition that “it would

be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing” its purposes “unless

the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued

10



with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give

instruction about it.”

Irrespective of reforms and changes yet to come, the immediate

need is education and participation—beginning with “priests, both
secular and religious, who are already working in the Lord’s vine-

yard” and with candidates for the priesthood in seminaries and

other places of study.

Only this can bring to pass the high hopes of the Church, as

expressed by the Pope and by all the bishops : “Participation by the

Christian people as ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,

a redeemed people’ (1 Peter 2:9, cf. 2: 4-5) is their right and

duty by reason of their baptism.”

11



IV

ENGLISH IN THE LITURGY

Some have already summed up the Second Vatican Council’s

Constitution on the Liturgy as a major concession of the vernacular

languages in place of Latin in the liturgy. This is a complete

over-simplification. There are much more important liturgical

reforms decreed by the Council.

Nevertheless, the use of the mother tongue in the official

liturgy is certainly the most striking of the changes already evident.

To understand the Council’s decision in this matter of lan-

guage, it is necessary to mention the background. First of all, the

bishops recognized the actual diversity in the Church. Looked at

realistically, Latin is not even remotely a universal language. It

is not the language of the Scriptures, nor the language of the

Oriental Churches. The vast majority of the world’s inhabitants

do not even have ancestors who spoke Latin. The bishops of the

Council were willing to vote for the most radical language con-

cessions, provided they were made dependent on the approval

to be given by the bodies of bishops for the respective countries

or regions of the world.

One reason for their unanimity is the long, hard work of all

who proposed and publicized the vernacular question over the

years. Events have proved them right. They truly sensed the

mind of the Church and the needs of the Church.

The vernacular thesis is a simple one. If the words are to be

meaningful and prayerful, people must pray in their own language.

Taking into account “the pastoral and didactic nature of the

liturgy,” Pope Paul VI and the other bishops prefaced the ver-

nacular legislation with these words: “When the Church prays or

sings or acts, the faith of those taking part is nourished and their

minds are raised to God, so that they may offer Him their rational

service. . .

In the case of the sacraments and sacramentals, as distinct

from the Mass itself, the Council was entirely open to change:

12



the entire text, including the very form of the sacraments, may

now be in the people’s language. This affects or may affect ordi-

nations, funerals, blessings of every kind, Confirmation and Pen-

ance, the very important rites for the sick and the dying, the special

services which on occasion precede Mass, such as the Holy Week

rites. The Council was similarly generous with regard to the

Church’s daily prayer or office when this is prayed by religious or

the laity, but made only a limited and indirect concession of a

vernacular office to the clergy.

All this is of secondary interest compared to the Mass, where

the Council decreed: “In Masses which are celebrated with the

people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue.

This is to apply in the first place to the readings and ‘the common

prayer,’ but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts

which pertain to the people.”

This decision, which has been publicized but not sufficiently

clarified, has two situations in mind:

1. The almost universal desire in the Church for the Scrip-

ture readings, particularly the Epistle and the Gospel of Mass, in

the vernacular.

2. The widespread, though not’ universal, need for wider

concessions, especially and immediately in the parts of Mass which

the people say or sing.

Judgment in both cases is left to the bishops in each country

or region. The bishops of the United States immediately agreed

to take advantage of the Council’s legislation, within the limits

of the readings and the parts which “belong” to the people.

That is not all. “Wherever a more extended use of the mother

tongue within the Mass appears desirable,” it may be introduced,

but only with the consent or formal permission of the Holy See.

This refers to the extension of the vernacular to the “priest’s parts”

of Mass, namely, the prayers called the collect, secret, and post-

communion, and above all the canon itself. Even before the

Council’s sessions ended, bishops from some countries were con-

sidering petitions of this kind for the Holy See’s permission. This

has been readily granted to the bishops of Canada, Australia, South

Africa, England and Wales, for example.

13



Aside from such special permission, what parts of Mass may

the bodies of bishops themselves allow in the vernacular?

First, the readings or lessons, as is obvious. The change,

incidentally, will not do away with the need for readers, especially

lay readers, who proclaim the word of God to the people at low

Masses in many places. Even though it is our tradition to reserve

the Gospel reading to the deacon (according to the pattern of

solemn Mass) or to the celebrant (in the absence of a deacon), the

Council stresses the hierarchical structure of the liturgy, and the

reading of scriptural lessons is distinct from the priestly office in

worship.

Second, the prayer of the faithful or “the common prayer”

to be reintroduced after the sermon, before the offertory begins.

No precise form or text for this prayer is determined by the Con-

stitution on the Liturgy; the Instruction of September 26, 1964,

leaves the matter to the bodies of bishops. What is certain is that

it should be in the mother tongue and that the people should

respond to the petitions “for holy Church, for the civil authorities,

for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the

salvation of the entire world.” It could take the elaborate form

of the Good Friday prayers: a series of invitations to prayer, periods

of silent prayer by the people, and collects; or a brief chant or

chants, followed by a series of verses and responses and concluding

prayers; or, most likely, a few invocations and responses in litany-

form with a concluding prayer said by the priest, responded to

by the people.

Next, the “parts which pertain to the people,” by which the

Council means the parts which the people should say or sing to-

gether. Two things need to be noted:

1. Although the priest may say the Agnus Dei, for example,

with the people, it is truly the people’s prayer or hymn. Where

the vernacular is allowed for such a part of Mass, the priest too

uses the vernacular.

2. The parts of the people, like the parts of the priest or

deacon, are determined “by the nature of the rite and the prin-

ciples of liturgy.”

14



In effect, the people’s parts are twofold: the “ordinary” parts,

chiefly and traditionally the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus

Dei, and, according to recent usage, the Our Father before Com-

munion; the “proper” parts, changing with each Mass, at the

entrance or Introit, between the Epistle and Gospel, at the Offer-

tory, and at Communion.

Because the revision of the Roman missal (and other liturgical

books) will take several years to complete, the bishops of the United

States have approved an interim but official translation of these

parts of Mass. If the people truly take their proper part, singing

and praying together, the Council’s reform of worship is thus

truly under way.

To some these vernacular concessions may seem meager.

They do not go much beyond what is already the rule in some

countries. But, to use Pope John’s expression, the Council has

now opened this particular window and has set no limits to the

extension of the people’s language in the people’s worship.

15



V
CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST

What will the Mass of the future look like? How soon will

all the changes decreed in the Constitution of the Second Vatican

Council become a matter of ordinary parish practice?

The answer to the second question is impossible to give. The

2,000 bishops of the Council could not themselves work out the

details of a revised, reformed Mass rite and text. Instead Pope

Paul VI quickly established a commission to correct the official

missal “so that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the ritual forms

of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious to the fullest

degree.” The first fruits of this commission’s labors were pub-

lished in the form of an Instruction, September 26, 1964.

The other question is easier. The Council’s Constitution on

the Liturgy, Chapter II, entitled “The Most Sacred Mystery of

the Eucharist,” gives the general directions and also the purpose:

that the meaning of the Mass “may be more clearly manifested,

and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be

more easily achieved.”

Some changes are obvious enough. Others, like concelebra-

tion of Mass and Communion under both kinds, require much

explanation.

Even the simpler changes may take time to work out:

—Official use of mother tongues, at least for the scriptural
readings and the parts of Mass which are properly said or sung

by the people;

—Greater variety and better selection in the Epistles and
Gospels;

—Preaching of homilies as an integral part of Mass—already
required;

—Restoration of a form of “people’s prayer” after the Gospel
and homily, to ask God’s intercession for the Church, diocese, and

parish, for those in need and for all mankind.

16



More complex was the Council’s solemn decision to restore,

at least for certain special occasions, Communion under both

kinds or species. In effect this means that, once a new ritual is

given approval, Catholics will have some opportunity to receive

Communion not only under the appearance or form of bread but

also under the form of wine.

This is a restoration; it is a recovery of something lost. The

Eastern Rites have faithfully maintained the practice in the tradi-

tion of the Lord’s Supper itself, at least by dipping the Host into

the precious Blood before Communion.

In past ages the question concerning Communion under both

kinds was: Is it necessary? Is it essential? And the Church’s

answer was no. Today the question is different: Is it desirable?

Is it profitable spiritually? And the Church’s answer, given by

the Pope and the other bishops, is yes.

At the 1 6th-century Council of Trent the vote on this matter

was close, and the Fathers of the council ultimately left the restora-

tion of the “cup” to the popes. Four hundred years later, the

bishops were almost unanimous: “Communion under both kinds

may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and

religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the

Apostolic See. . . .”

The examples given in the liturgy Constitution are only three,

intended as instances of other possibilities for the future: “to the

newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly

professed in the Mass of their religious7 profession, and to the

newly baptized in the Mass which follows their Baptism.” Com-

munion under both kinds is not some privilege of priests, and thus

one example each is given for the clergy (including deacons and

subdeacons and even the lesser orders), the religious and the laity.

Already the hope among the laity, certainly in countries where

the level of religious education is high, is that the practice will be

extended to the wedding Mass, to the occasions of first Com-

munion and Confirmation, and the like.

The cases may seem few and rare; this is no widescale return

to ancient practice. But it is a beginning and, at the very least,

it shows the willingness of the Church to attempt a renewal. It

17



should overcome, as no apologetic explanation would ever do,

the charge that the laity are denied the cup of the Lord’s Blood.

It shows respect for the usage of the Eastern Churches, both Ortho-

dox and Catholic.

But what, after all, is the purpose of restoring Communion

under both kinds? The answer lies in the nature of the Eucharist

as food and drink, as a holy meal. The Eucharistic sacrifice or

Mass was instituted by Christ in the form of a family meal, a

banquet of the community which is the Church. Any experience,

any sign, any outward evidence that we eat the Lord’s Flesh and

drink His Blood makes our participation a holier thing.

In modern times no Catholic has doubted that the Mass is a

true sacrifice offered to God; that is beyond question. That it is a

sacred meal of food and drink has not penetrated very deeply into

Catholic consciousness at times. It is not enough for the Council

to decree: “Efforts also must be made to encourage a sense of

community within the parish, above all in the common celebration

of Sunday Mass.” Pastors and priests and teachers must also put

this into effect, by restoring the fullness of understanding of the

Mass.

Similar reasoning operated in a second major reform of the

Council concerning the Mass: the decision to extend concelebra-

tion. The decree has two parts. The first part makes concele-

bration of Mass the regular practice—once the ritual has been
prepared and published—on Holy Thursday, at councils and
synods, and certain other occasions. The second part allows con-

celebration, with the permission of the bishop or the major re-

ligious superior, at the daily Mass in institutions, in communities,

and even in parishes when the needs of the people do not require

additional Masses—in fact on any occasion when priests are
gathered together without the obligation of celebrating individual

Masses.

Again, the doctrine or theory was already clear enough. The

Church is best manifested or seen “in the full active participation

of all God’s holy people . . . especially in the same Eucharist, in

a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop

surrounded by his college of priests and by his ministers.”

18



The problem lies rather in practice, where the unity of the

Christian community is lost sight of, especially when many priests

celebrate many separate Masses in the same Church at the same

time. Concelebration groups the many priests around the bishop

(or the priest who takes his place) at the one altar, offering the

one Eucharist in union with the whole body of the faithful.

In the large parish, concelebration of Mass on Sundays is

hardly an immediate possibility, but the restoration or extension

of the practice—now followed only at the Mass of ordination of
priests and consecration of bishops—has a pastoral, practical
goal. It will be a sign of the unity of the Church, an experience

and an expression of the Church as a worshiping community. As

the Canon of the Mass puts it, the offering is made by the “serv-

ants” of God and by the “holy people” of God, that is, by priests

and people together.

Besides this, concelebration, “whereby the unity of the priest-

hood is appropriately manifested,” will give a fresh turn and depth

to the piety and understanding of priests. It shows the meaning

of the holy order of priesthood—a college, a body, a community
into which men are ordained to be the collaborators and coopera-

tors of the bishop, and the servants or ministers of the people.

Even before issuing its Constitution “On the Church,” the

Second Vatican Council proclaimed the nature of the Church

as the praying people of God, as an assembly of worshipers. Com-

munion under both kinds, concelebration, and the whole revision

of the rite of holy Mass will gradually make this doctrine con-

crete, a matter of Sunday practice in the parish which is the Church

in miniature.

19



VI

SACRAMENTS OF FAITH

The revolutionary Constitution on public worship enacted by

Vatican Council II not only concentrates on reforms affecting the

Mass, the principal liturgy, but also provides for renewal of all

the sacraments.

Chapter III of the Council’s Constitution is called “The Other

Sacraments and the Sacramentals.” It deals with the sacraments

other than the Eucharist (to which Chapter II is devoted) and with

the sacramentals or “lesser sacraments.” It begins with a funda-

mental explanation: “The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify

men, to build up the body of Christ, and, finally, to give worship

to God.”

Already the spirit of theological renewal is evident in the

words of the Council. The least instructed Catholic sees in the

sacraments sources of God’s favor for himself (“to sanctify men”)

—in fact, there is always great danger of viewing the sacraments
exclusively in this way, almost as mechanical and routine sources

of infallible grace. The bishops of the Council bring to the fore

two other notions: that the sacraments, all the sacraments, have

a social, corporate, and public nature (“to build up the body of

Christ,” which is the Church); that the sacraments require dedi-

cation, commitment, faith, and devotion from those who take part

in them (“to give worship to God”).

The idea of the sacraments as channels of God’s grace is not

weakened or lessened by the Council’s teaching. But it is important

to insist also on the venerable phrase, “sacraments of faith,” and

to show how the sacraments instruct. The sacraments (and the

sacramentals and indeed all liturgical rites and deeds) are signs

which “the faithful should easily understand.” Anyone familiar

with the complex service of Baptism will readily see how much

revision and simplification is needed. In this and other cases,

what should be the most clearly expressed words (the “form” of

the sacrament), with the greatest significance and meaning to the

people, have been said up until now in a language not understood

by the participants.

20



Thus the Pope and the other Fathers of the Council decreed

a reform and a revision, beginning with the introduction of the

mother tongues—the latter to the extent decided upon by the
bodies of bishops in each country or region. The purpose of the

reform is simply expressed: “With the passage of time there have

crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain

features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from

clear to the people of today; hence some changes have become

necessary to adapt them to the needs of our own times.”

The first matter taken up by the Council, after the use of the

vernacular languages, is the preparation of local or regional rituals

for the celebration of sacraments and sacramentals. The principle

at stake is an important one: to correct the error that the Church’s

unity requires uniformity of practice, or, stated positively, to show

the special excellence in diversity. Prayers and rites are thus in-

tended by the bishops to reflect the genius, customs, or religious

traditions of different nations and peoples.

In Chapter III of the Constitution on the Liturgy there are

eight articles or paragraphs on Christian initiation. They begin

with the plan to revive the catechumenate, the period of formation

and preparation before the Baptism of an adult. Nowadays this

period is often considered merely as a time of instruction, for

acquiring information. The Council wishes it to recover the char-

acter of a period of spiritual formation, conversion of soul, prayer

by the whole community for the candidate.

All the rites related to Baptism, the first of the sacraments,

are to be re-examined: for infants, for adults, for the reception of

converts, for the first welcome of a child into the parish church

after he has been received into the Church by Baptism adminis-

tered in an emergency, etc. More important than these revisions

is the attempt to unite the three sacraments of Christian initia-

tion: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist.

Confirmation is rarely thought of as completing Baptism and

leading to the celebration of the Eucharist. The bishops now pro-

pose that this meaning should be brought out by the renewal of

baptismal promises just before the rite of Confirmation and by

celebrating Confirmation itself, where possible, during Mass.

21



In the United States most of the candidates for Confirmation

have already received Communion for the first time, perhaps

several years earlier. Nevertheless even in these circumstances

it is still desirable that the newly confirmed should take part in

Mass immediately and receive Communion. At least on that single

occasion the fullness of Christian initiation would be evident:

Baptism completed by Confirmation, Confirmation leading to the

eucharistic celebration.

All sacraments (and sacramentals, for that matter) are de-

pendent on the Eucharist and flow from it. The instinct of the

Church has always been to show this relation—that is the reason
why the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred during Mass. Now

the Council wishes to allow for and encourage the celebration of

Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony, religious profession, etc., as

a part of Mass.

In the case of the marriage service, which is brief and simple

in itself, the Council’s directive is clear: It is to take place during

Mass after the reading of the Epistle and Gospel and the preaching

of the sermon or homily; it is to be followed by appropriate

prayers of the people and by the remainder of Mass, in which the

bride and groom take part.

Still on the subject of the marriage rite, the Constitution

directs that, even when marriage is celebrated apart from Mass,

the Epistle and Gospel of the nuptial Mass should be read before-

hand and the nuptial blessing given. This blessing will be later

revised to include mention of the groom as well as the bride, so

that the equal fidelity to which both spouses pledge themselves

will be expressed and taught.

Some changes in the sacraments require a future correction

of ritual texts. This is not the case, however, with the Council’s

strong teaching on the sacrament of Anointing. In theory, the

faithful are already instructed to summon the priest at the begin-

ning of a serious illness and not to delay. But many things have

conspired against a proper understanding of the sacrament of

healing: the expression “last rites,” the official name “Extreme

Unction,” the practice (of many centuries) of administering anoint-

ing after Viaticum. Even priests sometimes demand proof of the

22



seriousness of the illness or of the imminence of death before

feeling free to administer this sacrament.

The Council has tried to change all this: (1) by the better

name for the sacrament: “the Anointing of the Sick”; (2) by mak-

ing clear that the Eucharist itself, Communion as Viaticum, is the

“last” sacrament; (3) and by explaining: Anointing “is not a

sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence,

as soon as any one of the faithful begins to be in danger of death

from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this

sacrament has certainly already arrived.”

Finally, the revision of the sacramentals, blessings, proces-

sions, etc., should be mentioned. This must, in the words of the

Council, “take into account the primary principle of enabling the

faithful to participate intelligently, actively, and easily; the cir-

cumstances of our own time must also be considered.”

Of special interest is the decision of the Council to provide

sacramentals which may be administered by lay people, for ex-

ample, the blessing of children or of the home by a father or

mother; blessings to be given by catechists in the absence of a

priest; specific blessings which may be prepared for lay religious

superiors or for those in charge of schools.

The changes in the sacramental rites which the Council has

decreed are important. The Council’s teaching of doctrine is more

important: The liturgy of sacraments and sacramentals gives the

faithful access to the power of Christ’s Easter passage from death

to life, “access to the stream to divine grace which flows from the

paschal mystery of the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ.”

23



VII

THE CHURCH AT PRAYER

The Constitution on the Liturgy, which is the first fruit of

Vatican Council II, is pastoral rather than clerical in tone.

Its direct concern is with the needs of the flock, the lay mem-

bers of the Church. It is less concerned with the clergy, the shep-

herds or pastors who serve the people.

In the entire reform of worship and promotion of liturgical

understanding, “the aim to be considered before all else” is the

“full and active participation by all the people.”

Superficially, Chapter IV of the Council’s document on wor-

ship may appear to be an exception. It deals with the Divine

Office, the public prayer of Christ and His Church. In practice

and popular estimation, this official prayer is exclusively the occu-

pation (and obligation) of priests and many religious.

In point of fact, the Council took a much broader stand and

initiated a reform of the office so that it “may be better and more

perfectly prayed in existing circumstances, whether by priests or

by other members of the Church.”

Naturally the bishops assembled in Rome were immediately

anxious that priests and religious, the ones who actually pray the

daily office, should pray it worthily and with the greatest spiritual

profit to the Church. Their broader hope was that the laity should

“recite the Divine Office, either with the priests, or among them-

selves, or even individually.”

Such encouragement from the Council would be completely

unrealistic if a thorough revision of the Church’s daily prayer were

not decreed at the same time. The present-day office is a marvel-

ous compilation of readings, especially from the Bible, and of

psalms, hymns, and prayers—but its form and arrangement are
complicated, repetitious, and formalistic. It is almost never cele-

brated with popular, congregational participation; few lay people

find it an attractive form of daily prayer, in spite of its excellence

of content.

24



The forthcoming revision of the Divine Office, which the

bishops decided upon, will be twofold: (1) a better selection of

texts (content), and (2) a better arrangement of parts (structure).

In Chapter II the Council decreed a fresh, more suitable, and

more varied selection of readings from the Bible for the Epistle

and Gospel of Mass. The same principle will also be applied to

the office, both in the Bible readings and in the passages taken

from the Fathers of the Church and other writers. Historical

inaccuracies will be corrected in the accounts of the lives of the

saints; the quality of hymns will be improved.

The structure of the office, according to the Council, “is

devised so that the whole course of the day and night is made

holy by the praises of God.” At present this design fails to work

out in practice. Even in monasteries the parts or “hours” of the

office have to be combined and celebrated at inappropriate times

of the day. The clergy engaged in the pastoral ministry find it

almost impossible to observe the pattern of the hours, planned

for the different periods of the day.

When the office is reformed in structure, it will clearly have

three principal parts: (1) morning prayer, called Lauds, (2) eve-

ning prayer, called Vespers, and (3) an “hour of reading”

(Matins). The latter will not be attached to any particular period

of the day, but will form a real service of spiritual reading for all

who take part in the office, whether in communities or alone.

With this clear and simpler pattern, the lesser parts of the

Church’s daily prayer will fit into their secondary place: brief

prayers for mid-morning, noon, and mid-afternoon—but only one
of these three to be obligatory for the clergy—and the prayer of
Compline before retiring at night. The hour of Prime, a monastic

prayer that is a duplication of the morning prayer (Lauds), will

be suppressed.

While the process of simplifying the office will involve some

abbreviation as well, a lessening of prayer within the Church was

hardly the Council’s purpose. On the contrary, for those who

must or those who choose to pray the daily office, the problem

today is not the total period of time at prayer, but the need to get

25



through so many psalm verses and vocal prayers: not too much

prayer, but too many prayers to be said.

If the office is revised well, it will be easier to pray with

greater deliberation, more slowly, in fact more prayerfully. Adapta-

tions of the office in the form of “short breviaries,” just as much

the Church’s prayer as the full Divine Office, will be worked out

—

especially for communities of Sisters and of Brothers, but well

suited to lay men and women.

Still better, a single form of community prayer—for example,
a new version of Sunday Vespers—might be celebrated together
by the faithful, by the sisters or brothers of the parish school, and

by the pastor and other priests.

In this chapter of the Constitution on worship, much is made

of the bishop’s authority, in the general spirit of decentralization

that characterizes the Council. The bishop may now dispense

those otherwise obliged to pray the office. He may allow the

clergy, on an individual basis, to recite the office in their own

language instead of Latin. But here again there is an immediate

mention of the laity and their needs: any priest, without dispensa-

tion or permission, may celebrate the office in the vernacular

language with a group of the faithful.

Among the strong exhortations addressed to the Church in

the Council’s Constitution on worship is the plea that “priests

and all others who take part in the Divine Office” should “improve

their understanding of the liturgy and of the Bible, especially of

the psalms.” While it refers directly to the Divine Office described

above and now about to be reformed, this recommendation is

applicable also to another kind of “public prayer” of the Church,

less official and less formal.

This is the so-called Bible service or Bible devotion, men-

tioned in Chapter I of the Constitution. Such services, which the

Council calls “sacred celebrations of the word of God,” are clearly

related to the office itself—in spirit, because they are scriptural
in their composition, including Bible readings, psalmody, etc.; in

their form, because they follow the pattern and style of liturgical

prayer and action.

26



These services are recommended by the Council as evening

devotions, for example, on Sundays and on the weekdays of Advent

and Lent. Since they do not have any set or official form, they

may be introduced into popular devotional usage immediately

—

and already are in use in many places.

Bible services, although not part of the office, deepen scrip-

tural understanding and give a liturgical spirit to popular devo-

tions. They suggest one way of taking a long, hard look at existing

devotions; this is now made necessary by the Council which re-

quires that “these devotions should be so drawn up that they

harmonize with the liturgical seasons, accord with the sacred

liturgy, are in some fashion derived from it, and lead the people

to it, since, in fact, the liturgy by its very nature far surpasses any

of them.”

The bishops of Vatican Council II, who enacted the Consti-

tution by a vote of 2,147 to 4, were determined “to impart an ever

increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful”—whether it
is a question of the Divine Office or of popular devotions.

In the office, says the Constitution, Christ “continues His

priestly work through the agency of His Church, which is cease-

lessly engaged in praising the Lord and interceding for the salva-

tion of the whole world.”

r
'1

27



VIII

THE EASTER MYSTERY
EVERY SUNDAY

How can the feasts and seasons of the “liturgical year” have

meaning in 20th-century daily life? This is the problem taken on

by the bishops of the Second Vatican Council in a special chapter

in their Constitution on the Liturgy.

The conciliar Fathers were aware, in dealing with this sub-

ject, that Advent and Lent, Christmas and Easter, and half a dozen

other holydays, are probably the only observances in the Church

calendar that have any impact on most Catholics.

As in other parts of the Constitution, here too the Council

has decreed a reform which must be worked out in detail gradu-

ally. It is intended to suit “the traditional customs and discipline

of the sacred seasons” to “the conditions of modern times.” One

paragraph, for example, contains a decision to revive the twofold

character of the Lenten season, first as a time to recall the sacra-

ment of Baptism, next as a time of penance, “not only internal

and individual, but also external and social.”

There is a long background to the Council’s decree to reform

the practices and celebrations which recur in each Church year.

Pope St. Pius X began to disentangle the observance of Sunday
as the Lord’s day and of the Lenten season from the overgrowth

of the feast days of saints. Pope Pius XII concentrated his spiritual

renewal of the Church on Easter, with a rearrangement and short-

ening of the Holy Week services. Pope John XXIII simplified

the complex series of feasts a little and tried to give some relief

to the weekday Mass-goer from the constant repetition of the

requiem Mass formula which prevails in some places.

This Council, however, speaks of changes “both in the liturgy

and by liturgical catechesis.” The first reference is to the revisions

needed if the progress of the Church’s year is to be effective and

meaningful for the people. The second reference, “liturgical cate-

chesis,” refers to the way in which the meaning of the feasts and

seasons is understood and taught, the way in which all the people

28



of the Church, old and young alike, are instructed, formed, and

developed during the liturgy itself, especially during the Mass.

A lesson learned early in the meetings of the Second Vatican
Council is that the truths, articles, and dogmas of faith may not

be studied or preached as a disjointed series of isolated facts. Their

unity in the single mystery of God’s plan for men must always be

foremost.

The same is true of the Church year with its apparent con-

glomeration of feasts of varying importance—it needs greater unity
and greater concentration, at least in our understanding of it. The

Constitution on the Liturgy expresses the central point of the

Church year with absolute assurance; it is the paschal or Easter

mystery of “the Passion, the Resurrection, and the glorification

of the Lord Jesus.”

It is worth noting how often the same unifying theme appears

throughout the Council’s teaching on sacred worship. The Eu-

charist is “a memorial of His Death and Resurrection ... a paschal

banquet.” “The paschal mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resur-

rection of Christ” is “the fount from which all sacraments and

sacramentals draw their power.”

“The work of Christ the Lord in redeeming mankind and

giving perfect glory to God” was “achieved principally by the

paschal mystery of His blessed Passion, Resurrection from the

dead, and glorious Ascension, whereby ‘dying, He destroyed our

death and, rising, He restored our life’.”

If this is the central point in Christian worship,? how does it

fit into the so-called liturgical year? The superficial answer is the

annual observance of Easter, with its special celebration of the

Lord’s passage from death to life. The Council’s answer is dif-

ferent: Sunday is the day of the Lord, the “original feast day,”

around which all else circles.

“Every week, on the day which the Church has called the

Lord’s day, she keeps the memory of the Lord’s Resurrection . . .

By a tradition handed down from the Apostles which took its

origin from the very day of Christ’s Resurrection, the Church cele-

brates the paschal mystery every eighth day. ... It should be pro-

posed to the piety of the faithful and taught to them so that it may

become in fact a day of joy and of freedom from work. . . .”

29



It is no easy task to recover this full meaning of Sunday—in
practice, in the teaching of the clergy, in the awareness of the

people—but the Council judges it an important and necessary
effort.

The Council, after establishing every Sunday as a day to

celebrate the Resurrection, which is central to Christ’s “saving

work,” was able to turn to the annual feast of Easter and the entire

series of observances which revolve around it.

These are described as the Church’s attempt to unfold “the

whole mystery of Christ, from the Incarnation and Birth until

the Ascension, the day of Pentecost, and the expectation of blessed

hope and of the coming of the Lord.” In the course of each year,

the powers and merits of Christ’s deeds are “made present for all

time”; Christians are able to lay hold upon them.

In all this, the real need is to keep proportion and unity

uppermost, to center every facet of the Christian religion around

the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. With this in mind, the

bishops of the Council approached the delicate question of the

feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the other saints.

These have their necessary, significant place in the Church’s

year (and in the consciousness of the faithful)—certainly in the
case of Mary, as well as in the case of “saints who are truly of

universal importance” throughout the Church. The Constitution

on the Liturgy decrees that the saints’ feasts must not predominate

or take precedence. Again, it is a question of maintaining unity

and proportion in the way in which the Christian Faith is pro-

claimed and celebrated.

Now it should be clear why, in another connection, the

Council insists upon a return to scriptural emphasis in worship

and in teaching. “It is essential to promote that warm and living

love for Scripture to which the tradition of both eastern and

western rites gives testimony.”

In the liturgy of the future—with the major revision of the
liturgical books

—
“there is to be more reading from holy Scrip-

ture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.”

30



In the liturgy of the present, preaching “should draw its

content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources.” Bible

services—in today’s practice, not merely in the future—should
be encouraged, particularly to unfold the many but unified sides

of the mystery of Christ celebrated each year.

One last point should be made. Some have thought that the

Council’s liturgical renewal is a matter of revising legal regula-

tions for Catholic worship. This is the same kind of error that

Pope Pius XII rebuked as long ago as 1947.

On the contrary the Council’s purpose is far deeper. It in-

tends to renew the Christian spirit and to center observances,

practice, and understanding upon the mystery of Christ, in par-

ticular upon the paschal mystery announced in Scripture, the

Lord’s dying, rising from the dead, and ascending into glory.

31



IX

ART FOR WORSHIP’S SAKE

It is probably two decades since any informed American

Catholic has fallen into the error that the liturgical movement

is merely a matter of large-sized vestments, modern art, and

Gregorian chant techniques. This total misconception of the

liturgical movement, once prevalent among the clergy, finds no

support at all in the Constitution on the Liturgy enacted by Pope

Paul VI and the other bishops of the Ecumenical Council.

In fact the notion of a revival concerned with externals of

worship finds no justification in such organs of the movement in

the United States as the monthly magazine Worship, published

since 1926, and the annual Liturgical Weeks, held since 1940.

The goals of all such efforts are identical with the liturgical

purposes of Vatican Council II: “to ensure that the faithful take

part, fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the

rite, and enriched by its effects.”

Nevertheless, the spiritual renewal intended by the Council

is to affect human beings, men rather than angels, men assembled

by God as a community of worshipers. Therefore, the Council

devoted two substantial chapters of its Constitution to the arts of

the Church, to architecture, the graphic and plastic arts, and above

all church music. These are treated as a kind of sign language,

which expresses outwardly and in different ways the same faith and

devotion which the words and actions of public worship manifest.

The key to this notion is found in a single sentence of the

Constitution: “In the liturgy the sanctification of man is signified

by signs perceptible to the senses . . .”

And so the Council laid down a general principle for art in the

building, renovating, adorning, and furnishing of places of worship

:

“The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her

very own . . . The art of our own days, coming from every race

and region, shall also be given free scope in the Church . . .”

During the debate on this question at the Council’s 1962

session, some bishops felt that the whole treatment of sacred art

32



could be stated in a few sentences such as these, to encourage

rather than inhibit the artist of today.

The important point in Chapter VII of the Constitution is

freedom for sacred art—limited only by the truths of faith and
the concrete needs of worship. In recent centuries, certainly in

recent decades, the Church has seemed to be a poor patron of

fresh, bold, contemporary art. Of course religious art of past times

must not be destroyed or renounced, but the present need is to

welcome the “art of our own days” into the service of religion, “to

contribute its own voice of praise” in Christian worship.

Most artists and architects will welcome the new norms laid

down, in broad terms, by the Council:

—To strive for “beauty rather than mere sumptuous display”
in art, vestments, and ornaments—a blow for simplicity in place of
costly and gaudy showiness;

—To cut down the excessive multiplication of images in
churches, which leads to “confusion among the Christian people”;

—To build churches that are “suitable for the celebration
of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.”

This last rule, perhaps the most practical in Chapter VII of

the document, is something new in Church legislation. It corre-

sponds to the efforts of the best architects in recent years, who

see a church building as a sacred room where the people of God

assemble, with the priest at their head, to celebrate the Holy

Eucharist.

Why does the Constitution make no reference to specific

matters like altars erected so that the priest faces the people during

Mass? One reason is obvious. Mass facing the people is not a

question of future reforms; it is an accepted, lawful, and desirable

practice already—like the singing of hymns or psalms at suitable
times during low Mass, the use of lay readers and commentators,

the token offertory processions already common in some places.

Before the bishops voted to revise the regulations for church

buildings, they received a printed explanation to illustrate some of

the specific revisions proposed. In this document—a kind of

33



appendix for the bishops’ information—the ideal church plan is
described.

The celebrant’s seat is at the rear-center of the sanctuary area

(at the “head” of the church); the altar is located between the

sanctuary and the nave (that is, between the clergy and the people,

in the midst of the assembly). The presence of a small tabernacle

on the altar should not be considered an obstacle to the celebra-

tion of Mass facing the people, a point repeated in the Instruction

of September 26, 1964, on implementing the Constitution.

The preceding chapter of the Constitution, Chapter VI, deals

with sacred music, “song united to the words ... a necessary or

integral part of the solemn liturgy.” Several points are new and

important in Church legislation; they all tend toward a broadening

and popularizing of the sung forms of worship:

1. The nobler form of public worship is no longer defined

merely as the sung liturgy or the high Mass, but as “divine offices

. . . celebrated solemnly in song, with the assistance of sacred

ministers and the active participation of the people.”

2. Gregorian chant is accorded pride of place in the Roman

rite; it is not used in the many other rites of the Church. More

important, the Council gives the strongest encouragement thus

far to other kinds of music: “The Church approves of all forms

of true art having the needed qualities . .

This principle, valid everywhere, has a special application

among “peoples who have their own musical traditions,” which

should be introduced into the liturgy. One test is proposed: har-

mony with the “spirit of the liturgical action,” specifically by

allowing the people to sing “acclamations, responses, psalmody,

antiphons, and songs . .

3. Depending on the decision of the bodies of bishops in the

different countries or regions, the Council allows the vernacular

languages in the sung Mass (and other services) to the same extent

as in the low Mass.

This opens up to composers and choirs perhaps the greatest

opportunity for the development of church music in a thousand

years—but with a new and strong proviso: composers are invited

34



to produce “genuine sacred music, not confining themselves to

works which can be sung only by large choirs, but providing also

for the needs of small choirs and for the active participation of the

entire assembly of the faithful.”

All this means, or can mean, revolutionary growth and provi-

dential freedom in the arts of the Church, especially music and

architecture. But the Council’s concern with them is directed

toward the faith and holiness of the worshipers. In the Christian

liturgy the arts are the sign language of prayer and praise of God.

From gloomy silence to joyous song—this is the revolution
demanded by the Second Vatican Council for Catholic worship.

35



X
GUIDELINES FOR PRESENT

AND FUTURE

It may be expressed in other ways—from passive unconcern
at Mass to active involvement, from a liturgy understood by priests

to the people’s worship.

The Constitution on the Liturgy is revolutionary, partly be-

cause it decrees a thorough reform of the services of worship, partly

because it brings the whole Church abreast of the Biblical, cate-

chetical, ecumenical and theological movements of the past few

decades. To take one example, the picture of the Church as a

legalistic, authoritarian society is bypassed. The Church is seen

as a community of love, as an assembly of worshipers.

The center of Christian worship is the celebration of the

Eucharist, holy Mass. According to the Council, this is the height

toward which all the other activities of the Church lead. It is

the source and starting point for the entire Christian life of the

faithful.

Yet, more often than not, the Mass appears to be an im-

personal and mechanical rite, the weekly payment of a debt to

God, or a haven of escape from the real world. For a long time

people have been described as “hearing Mass” and priests have

been described as “saying Mass,” as if it were a formula of words

—

words spoken in a language which not one participant in a thou-

sand could understand without a translation. The involvement of

the individual person in the community’s worship is at a minimum.

Communion hardly appears to be the joyful feast of the Christian

family at the Lord’s common table.

“The Church,” says the Council, “has never failed to come

together to celebrate the Paschal Mystery” of the Passion, Resur-

rection, and Ascension of Jesus, “reading those things ‘which

were in the Scriptures concerning him’ (Luke 24:27), celebrating

the Eucharist in which ‘the victory and triumph of his death are

again made present,’ and at the same time giving thanks ‘to God

for his unspeakable gift’ (2 Cor. 9:15) in Christ Jesus, ‘in praise

of his glory’ (Eph. 1:12), through the power of the Holy Spirit.”

36



This description of holy Mass is far removed from the routine

and hurried celebration that is still common—and in which the
mystery of God’s great deeds in His people is not revealed but

made mysterious. The description also shows how the Council

preferred the authentic language of the Bible to the technical

catechism formulas and the abstract terms of theology.

In the concrete, the Pope and the other bishops of the Council

decided that the whole Mass should be simplified: “Elements

which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were

added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other

elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history

are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days

of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.”

This reform of the Mass prayers and rites, underway with the

appointment of the new commission by Pope Paul VI, may involve

cutting down the offertory prayers, restoring the Eucharistic prayer

or Canon to its former effectiveness, solemnly proclaimed aloud,

and improving the announcement of God’s word. None of this is

change for the sake of novelty, but for the sake of meaningful,

genuine worship.

The directives adopted by the Council for this work of reform

indicate facets of Catholic worship that have been neglected and

now need to be re-established, if in fact as well as in theory the

liturgy is to be “considered as an exercise of the priestly office

of Jesus Christ” by all His members.

First, the communal and hierarchic nature of the Christian

liturgy is to be stressed. The Church is the sacrament or sign of

unity. It is defined as “the holy people united and ordered under

their bishops.” This must become evident, much more evident, in

the ways of worship: the priest presides and leads, but the people

have their full part.

Next, the very act of worship is a lesson and a teacher. The

Constitution on the Liturgy expresses this by setting down rules

for future reform “based upon the didactic and pastoral nature

of the liturgy . . . For in the liturgy God speaks to His people

and Christ is still proclaiming His Gospel. And the people reply

to God both by song and by prayer.”

37



This is why the rites of worship should be “short, clear, and

unencumbered by useless repetitions . . . within the people’s powers

of comprehension.” This is why the Council calls for a radical

change in preaching, drawn “mainly from Scriptural and liturgical

sources,” why the language of the people will be introduced after

many centuries of divorce between nave and sanctuary.

Finally, the bishops adopted a principle of adaptation, so

that there may be flexibility and diversity in the liturgy from place

to place. Only God and His teaching are unchanging. Human

institutions and human prayers must change and be adapted to

men’s understanding. A fundamental purpose of the Second Vati-
can Council is “to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own

times those institutions which are subject to change.”

The Church is always young, always alive. Its renewal and

reform affect people in different ways. For some, change seems

to be a harsh renunciation of the past, even though the Council

has explained the Christian Faith and its purposes in the very

words of holy Scripture.

For others, including the college of apostles, the Council’s

first achievement is “a sign of the providential dispositions of God

in our time, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church . . .

a distinguishing mark of the Church’s life, indeed of the whole

tenor of contemporary religious thought and action.”

Above all, the Constitution on the Liturgy fulfills the vision

of Pope John XXIII, that renewal of the Church might be the first

step toward the unity of all who believe in Christ. As a divine

institution, the Church is without spot or blemish. As a human

institution, made up of sinful men, the Church may be unattrac-

tive and incomprehensible—in fact the vast, vast majority of men
are unaware of, or are indifferent to, the Church.

The Church is not afraid of the present or of the future. It

welcomes growth and progress. The people celebrate the memorial

of the Lord’s death and triumph, Passion and Resurrection—and
in that celebration they commit themselves to live as Christians

and to bear witness to Christ.

The council of renewal does not hesitate to express the

Christian hope with gladness: “We eagerly await the Savior, our

Lord Jesus Christ, until He, our life, shall appear and we too will

appear with Him in glory.”

38



XI

LITURGICAL REFORMS-

FIRST STEP

The first few changes in the Mass, to make popular under-

standing and participation easier, have now been published. This

preliminary step in the overall liturgical reform decreed in 1963

by Vatican Council II will go into effect throughout the Church on

March 7, 1965, the First Sunday of Lent.

In its Constitution on the Liturgy, the Council gave broad

mandates for reforms to be worked out in detail by a commission

drawn from all over the world. Early in 1964 Pope Paul VI set

up the commission, with the major task of revising the official

missal, ritual, breviary, etc. Although the complete reform is

expected to take several years, the “Commission for the Imple-

mentation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” prepared

an interim Instruction concerning the Mass and other services.

It was made public October 16 by the Congregation of Rites, the

agency of the Roman Curia which has dealt with liturgical matters

since the 16th century.

Unlike the changes of liturgical texts into the various liturgical

languages, which are questions entrusted by the Council to the

bishops of each country, the new Instruction is obligatory through-

out the Latin rites of the Church, by express direction of Pope

Paul. Most striking among the changes are those in the Mass,

all flowing from the Council’s decision to help the people take

their own part by stressing the community nature of Christian

worship and by taking full advantage of the liturgy’s educative

or formative possibilities.

The beginning and end of Mass have been simplified: psalm

42 in the preparatory prayers said by the priest and server is

dropped; Mass ends at the blessing, with the last gospel and the

prayers after Mass entirely eliminated.

These omissions do not shorten the Mass very much, nor is

this the intention of the change. In fact the time saved is needed

for the preaching insisted upon by the Council as an integral part

39



of the Mass, and also for the new “prayer of the people.” The

latter, a brief series of invocations or petitions, is to be said or

sung at the completion of the service of God’s word (readings,

homily, creed), just after the priest says “Let us pray.” The actual

text of the prayer of the faithful, however, has been left to the

decision of the national conferences of bishops.

One contradiction in the rite of Mass has been partially cor-

rected. Three of the most solemn and public prayers, recited

quietly by the priest up to the present time, are now to be sung or

said aloud for all to hear and to respond: (a) the prayer over

the offerings, called the secret prayer, which completes the prepara-

tion of the bread and wine; (b) the concluding doxology of the

Canon or eucharistic prayer; and (c) the prayer for deliverance

from evil and for peace, which is added to the Lord’s Prayer.

Of the “public” prayers of Mass, which the whole congregation

should hear and follow, only the body of the Canon, which still

awaits revision, will be said quietly.

Broader changes are also indicated. On principle, the cele-

brating priest is no longer to recite privately or quietly any text

or prayer or reading that is said or sung by others, whether by

the people or the choir in the case of chants and hymns, or by a

lector in the case of readings. This eliminates a curious duplica-

tion; in the past the rule prevailed that the priest should recite the

Gloria, for example, even though the hymn was sung by the people.

This change, making specific a decision of the Council, is not in-

tended to relieve the priest of a small burden. It is to make a

clear distinction of the roles or parts in the liturgy, with each one,

priest or minister or layman, taking his own part.

In countries where parts of the Mass are said in the vernacular,

the epistle and gospel should of course be proclaimed or announced

facing the people, to whom the words are addressed. The new

Instruction goes further, however, and describes a whole new rite

for this “liturgy of the word of God.”

At low Mass, for example, it is preferable that a lector, whether

a cleric or a layman, should read the epistle, while the celebrant

listens; the same lector may read the chants which follow the epistle,

unless these are sung or recited by others. The gospel reading

40



is reserved to a deacon, a second priest, or the celebrant himself.

Even at low Mass, the celebrant may remain at his seat through

these readings, thus emphasizing his office of presiding over the

service and taking his place at the altar only for the celebration

of the Eucharist itself, beginning at the offertory.

Various possibilities are provided for the readings: at the

lectern or pulpit, at the edge of the sanctuary area or railing, even

at the altar. The alternatives are a step toward breaking down the

rigidity and formalism of ceremonial directives or rubrics. Great

flexibility is provided, according to circumstances, so that the

reading to the people will be well planned beforehand, and not

conducted routinely according to a rigid pattern.

To help popular participation and to show that the Mass is a

sacrificial banquet or meal, the Instruction allows and prefers, but

does not require, that altars be arranged for Mass with the cele-

brant facing the people. It is made very clear that Mass may be

celebrated in this way even if there is a small tabernacle on the

altar.

A few directions are given on church building and planning,
to encourage congregations to participate with understanding. The

widest freedom is given in locating the tabernacle, which has some-

times appeared to be an obstacle to the celebration of Mass toward

the people. The tabernacle may be on the main altar or on another

altar (ideally in a separate chapel or area, according to the Instruc-

tion) or even, according to local custom and in particular cases

with the approval of the bishop, in some other fitting place in

the church.

The Instruction, which contains 99 sections, deals with many

details, some technical, such as the procedure when the national

bodies of bishops enact legislation on the liturgy in virtue of the

1963 Constitution. The responsibilities of liturgical commissions,

national and diocesan, are also spelled out at length.

Most details have pastoral value and importance: the possi-

bility of sung Mass with a deacon but without a subdeacon; the

elimination of restrictions formerly placed upon priests in giving

certain blessings; the reprobation of any distinction among persons,

for example, in church seating arrangements, on the basis of social

or economic condition. One welcome concession allows the faith-

41



ful who receive holy Communion at the Easter Vigil Mass or at

the Christmas midnight Mass to receive Communion again at Mass

on Easter Sunday morning and on Christmas day.

The Instruction devotes much space to seminary training and

especially to long overdue integration of the whole spiritual life of

clerical students with the liturgy. The popular Bible services are

encouraged in parishes, but with their pattern left flexible. Details

of the confirmation and marriage rites within Mass itself are worked

out. Since the homily is a part of the Mass, and not a catechetical

instruction or occasional sermon, a general statement of the Council

is made specific: where plans for Mass sermons are set up, they

must be in harmony with the seasons and feasts of the church

year, that is, with the mystery of redemption.

In some matters the Instruction is more restrictive than the

Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy. Altar missals and brevi-

aries used by the clergy should contain Latin as well as vernacular

texts, even when the latter are allowed. The ordination rites must

remain in Latin, except for introductory sections. In general, how-

ever, the openness of the Council has been preserved, even in a

document which necessarily deals in directives and norms.

The spirit of liturgical renewal shines through in the signifi-

cant opening paragraphs of the Instruction. The whole import

of the reform does not lie in novelty, but in pastoral action to

express the “paschal mystery” better. This mystery of the death,

resurrection, and ascension of Jesus is celebrated in the Church

“in the sacraments of faith, chiefly baptism and the Eucharist.”

And around the celebration of the Eucharist “are ranged the other

sacraments and the sacramentals, by which the paschal mystery of

Christ is unfolded in the course of each church year.”

Some will be disappointed that this or that change has not been

achieved at once, but the Instruction points out repeatedly its pro-

visional character and the necessity of a gradual, step by step

liturgical reform. But there is no gradualness mentioned in the

case of liturgical education and instruction, formation and par-

ticipation. This task, according to the Instruction, is the responsi-

bility of all pastors of souls, “one of the chief duties of a faithful

dispenser of the mysteries of God,” in the words of Vatican

Council II.

42











. _