The Encounter with Jesus of Nazareth, Improvisation or "Creativity" Faithful to Tradition
The Sacrificial Significance of the Eucharist
The Post-Council Church the Authentic One?
- Authentic Participation Depends on the Rite or the Language?
- Turned Away from the People or Facing the Lord?
- Participation with Sacred Music
Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) — The encounter with Jesus of Nazareth never left anyone indifferent. Since that first afternoon on which John and Andrew were the first to meet Him on the banks of the River Jordan (cfr. Jn 1,35 . . .), thanks to the freely bestowed gift of the Holy Spirit, men and women of every latitude have continued and continue to meet Him in various ways. Some through a meeting with a witness of the faith, others through a meeting with a community or reading a book. The Gospel itself narrates numerous encounters positive, in the sense that they led the person to follow the Master, or negative, when the person was struck by what Jesus said or did, but then walked away or even plotted against Him.
The actual fact the Parable of the Sower is a good description of the dynamic of freedom set in motion by an encounter with an exceptional Presence. We could describe Jesus' preaching as a continual raising the stakes. Not content for man to be reminded of the importance of values, He wishes him to be gradually but inexorably introduced into reality so he may experience happiness. His goal is to lead man into a relationship with the Father: we might say that his primary purpose is to capture men to lead them to the Father. Even his miracles were clear signs that with Him the Kingdom of God had been inaugurated. Even his closest friends had to keep revising the impression they had formed of Him.
Interesting in this regard, also because it is connected with the theme with which we are dealing, the episode of the miracle of the loaves and fishes (cfr. Jn 6): an immense crowed is fed with a few loaves and two fish. However that hunger satisfied left many of those present with an even greater hunger: to know Him better, to stay with Him. In fact the next day, Saint John tells us, the crowd had come the synagogue in Capernaum to meet Him and Jesus told them: "In all truth I tell you, you are looking for me not because you have seen the signs but because you had all the bread you wanted to eat. Do not work for food that goes bad, but work for food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of man will give you" (Jn 6, 26-27). Continuing his dialogue and explaining the significance of the gift of manna received in the desert by those who had followed Moses, Jesus led many to desire the food which does not perish: "Sir, give us this bread".
In a crescendo of realism, although amidst murmuring among those present, Jesus comes to the apex of what he wishes to tell them: "I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world." (Jn 6, 51) (. . .) " Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person" (Jn 6,56). The scandal among those present reaches its peak: some of his disciples distance themselves from His words. Jesus asks those closest to him: "'What about you, do you want to go away too?". Peter's answer is immediate: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (Jn 6,68). Living alongside Jesus is dramatic. Those who desire an exhaustive answer to the meaning of life realise there is a far deeper vision of reality with which they will have to come to terms.
The event of the Last Supper therefore, with all its drama, is to be seen not only as a time of sharing, but above all in a sacrificial perspective. Probably the apostles failed once again to understand the words of their Master. The words Jesus used when he instituted the Eucharist would become comprehensible only when they saw him hanging on the cross and still more after his resurrection. Emblematic in this sense is the episode of the disciples of Emmaus: they recognise the Risen Lord only when the anonymous traveller who joins them on the road, breaks bread at the inn at Emmaus (cfr. Lk 24). The sacrificial character of the Eucharistic liturgy is clear also in the other Synoptics and in Saint Paul in his 1st Letter to the Corinthians: "on the night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread …" (1 Cor 11,23).
The sacrificial significance of the Eucharist
I think I can say that the dramatic nature of Christ's life, to its culmination of death on the cross, escapes none. Nevertheless the fact that John Paul II decided to dedicate an Encyclical to the subject of the Eucharist offers food for thought. Legitimate consideration of the Eucharist as a fraternal banquet, accompanied by a vision of the evangelical message emptied of drama, has insinuated the idea that living the Christian experience follows the natural dynamic of human life. In actual fact as we said above, the encounter with Jesus introduces a drama which is prolonged in the life of the Church reaching its culmination sacramentally in the sacrifice of the Eucharist.
Returning to John Paul's reasons for devoting an encyclical to the Eucharist, we might identify two principal motives. The first might be sought in the importance of the Eucharist for the Church, its dynamic value, a source from which every generation needs to drink, and in fact the Pontiff writes "The Church draws her life from the Eucharist. This truth does not simply express a daily experience of faith, but recapitulates the heart of the mystery of the Church" (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ecclesia De Eucharistia, 1).
A second reason could certainly be an attempt to heal the reduction operated when the sacrificial nature of the Mass is overshadowed. To do this it would help to read a few passages of the encyclical again. Taking up the text of the 'Institution' handed down to us by Saint Luke and echoing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with regard to the salvific value of the Eucharist, the Pope affirms: "This aspect of the universal charity of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is based on the words of the Saviour himself. In instituting it, he did not merely say: "This is my body", "this is my blood", but went on to add: "which is given for you", "which is poured out for you" (Lk 22:19-20). Jesus did not simply state that what he was giving them to eat and drink was his body and his blood; he also expressed its sacrificial meaning and made sacramentally present his sacrifice which would soon be offered on the Cross for the salvation of all. "The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood"." (Ecclesia De Eucaristia 12).
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one and the same. The victim is the same, only offered through the ministry of the priest. The Catechism of the Catholic Church on this subject cites the Council of Trent and affirms: "in this divine sacrifice, which comes about in the Mass, is contained and is immolated in a bloodless manner Christ, who offered himself once and for all in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross" (Council of Trent: Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 1740). Along the same lines Vatican II says about the participation of the people of God in the Eucharistic sacrifice: "Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the Divine Victim to God, and offer themselves along with it" (Lumen Gentium, 11).
Unfortunately almost exclusive accentuation of the convivial dimension at the expense of the sacrificial dimension is the result, the Pope continues, of "abuses which have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet." (Ecclesia de Eucaristia, 10).
The paschal mystery of Christ is his passion, death and resurrection, which is the crowning of the sacrifice. The resurrection overcame the barrier of death and the human limit of time and space. Christ's resurrection enables him to be sacramentally present in the Eucharist, as John Paul II says in the mentioned encyclical: "The sacramental re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which — in the words of Paul VI — "is called 'real' not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were 'not real', but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present". This sets forth once more the perennially valid teaching of the Council of Trent: "the consecration of the bread and wine effects the change of the whole substance of the bead into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called this change transubstantiation".
Truly the Eucharist is a mysterium fidei, a mystery which surpasses our understanding and can only be received in faith, as is often brought out in the catechesis of the Church Fathers regarding this divine sacrament: "Do not see — Saint Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts — in the bread and wine merely natural elements, because the Lord has expressly said that they are his body and his blood: faith assures you of this, though your senses suggest otherwise"." (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 15).
About a year later, at the request of John Paul II, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the "Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist "(25 March 2004). This document on the basis of the doctrinal instances, to be honest not new, contained in the Encyclical on the liturgy in general and the Eucharist especially, offers indications on the celebration of the sacred liturgy while stigmatising a series of abuses. The Instruction has a Preamble, eight chapters and a Conclusion. The chapters are: The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy; The Participation of the Lay Christian Faithful in the Eucharistic Celebration; The Proper Celebration of Mass; Holy Communion; Certain Other Matters concerning the Eucharist; The Reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist and Eucharistic Worship outside Mass; Extraordinary Functions of the Lay Faithful; Remedies.
The fact that the promulgation of such a document was seen as a necessity should be considered in two lights: on the one hand, the quantity and the quality of liturgical abuses was evidently considerable, to the point that the individual faithful are asked to be vigilant concerning the correct and worthy celebration of so great a mystery, and to report abuses with "charity and truth" to the diocesan Bishop "to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected." (Redemptionis Sacramentum n. 183); on the other hand, Mother Church never tires of reproving her sons and daughters when some, due to a wrong understanding of human freedom, forget that it is the duty of every Christian, especially those with a ministerial role, to faithfully hand on what they themselves received.
Prof. Joseph Ratzinger, today Pope Benedict XVI, in his academic activity and later as a Cardinal, said many times that the specificity of the Eucharistic Mystery is its sacrificial nature. For Catholic doctrine the image of a "meal" or "banquet" is insufficient to determine the nature of the Eucharistic Celebration. Here is what the Pope says in his book "Introduzione allo spirito della liturgia" (Ed. San Paolo, 2001), to the analysis of the "form of banquet it is necessary to add that the Eucharist can certainly not be properly described with terms such as meal or banquet. The Lord, undoubtedly, instituted the newness of Christian worship within the context of the Jewish Passover Banquet, but he commanded us to repeat this newness, not the banquet as such" (Introduzione allo spirito della liturgia, p. 74).
It is important to see that emphasis on the sacrificial value of the Eucharist, rather than that of a fraternal banquet, besides calling attention to the understanding of the Liturgy as it emerges from the texts of Vatican II, counters what is known as "the spirit of the Council" which many ecclesial circles have made into an inviolable "dogma". The then Cardinal Ratzinger says the same thing in another book when, in answer to a question posed by Italian writer and journalist Vittorio Messori, he writes: "the Mass is the Church's common sacrifice, in which the Lord prays with us and for us and gives himself to us. It is making Christ's sacrifice sacramentally present: therefore its salvific power extends to all men and women, present or absent, living or dead. We must realise once again that the Eucharist is not of less value if Communion is not received: in this awareness urgent dramatic matters such as the readmission to the Sacrament of divorced persons lose much of their oppressive weight". The apparent absence of a connection between the sacrificial value of the Mass with matters which we might call 'pastoral' did not escape the interviewing journalist, or anyone else, I suppose. And therefore it is easy to associate oneself with the journalist when he says: "what do you mean". The then Cardinal replies: "if the Eucharist is lived simply as a banquet among friends, those excluded from receiving the Sacred Gifts are definitely excluded from this fraternity. However if we return to the complete view of the Mass (The Lord's fraternal Banquet and Sacrifice, with its power and effectiveness for all those united with Him in faith), then one who does not eat of this bread, nevertheless takes part in his or her own measure, in the gifts offered to all the others" (Joseph Ratzinger, Rapporto sulla fede, ed. San Paolo 1985, pp. 136, 137) [Fides English translation July 2008].
This sort of statement opens an interesting point of view: the more we focus on the solution of 'pastoral' difficulties, the more those matters remain unresolved. Emphasising the foundations of Catholic doctrine, its philosophical and theological implications, solutions can be found to many questions.
The post-council Church, the authentic Church?
The defiant title I have given to this paragraph intends to highlight a certain mystification which some attempt to pass off when speaking of the Second Vatican Council. If statements such as: "the post-Council Church is closer to the people"; or, at last with the Council "the Church changed its dogmatic image for a more human one" can be accepted from the man in street. But it is more serious when similar affirmations, perhaps slightly more subtle, come from men of the Church or those who claim to be Catholic intellectuals. That Vatican II, like other councils held in history, was a significant experience in the life of a community, due to the quantity and quality of the participants, the novelty of the matters treated, the impact it had on the media, is unquestionable. Any new attempt on the part of a reality like the Church to intercept the feelings, doubts and anxieties of men and women of the present day, and above all the thirst for the truth which lies in the depth of every human heart, and to supply an adequate response to the times, is undoubtedly an important fact.
But to have passed from considering the Council an extraordinary event to an attempt to put a post-Council Church against a pre-Council Church is most serious. The Church's mission, said John XXIII, is to safeguard the deposit of the faith and to dedicate herself "fearlessly and boldly to the task demanded by our epoch, continuing along the path which the Church has travelled for almost twenty centuries" (John XXIII, Opening address, Vatican II, 11 October 1962). The fact that from the beginning interpretations of the Council were insinuated which contrasted with what it was in reality and had affirmed in its documents, is clear from a homily given by Pope Paul VI a few years after the closing of the Council. A homily which we could define as a sort of immediate summary of the Council experience, on the occasion of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul 29 June 1972, after underlining that the Church had grown in self-awareness, above all in the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium — Paul VI highlights that she also experiences perplexity, pain and anguish for the spreading secularism threatening the world.
However the Pontiff's most serious criticism was for the "Church of today" "one might say that through some mysterious fissure — not at all mysterious — the smoke of Satan has penetrated into God's temple". He was referring to lack of confidence in the Church, to systematic doubt which had found its way into the ecclesial mentality, the fact that people preferred to listen to the "guru" of the day from the columns of some newspaper, rather than the authoritative words of the Magisterium. Was he referring to some maître a pensée, leader of those Catholics who had become adults? And again "We believed that after the Council there would be a bright day of sunshine for the history of the Church. Instead there is a day of clouds and tempest, darkness, seeking and uncertainty, and the joy of communion is difficult to share; we preach ecumenism while we are ever further from the others, and we open chasms instead of closing them. How did this happen? We share with you a thought — we offer it ourselves for free discussion — which may be unfounded, that this is the work of a power, an adverse power, we name it, the Devil, this mysterious being which exists [. . .]. We believe something preternatural has happened in the world precisely to poison, almost crush, the fruits of the Ecumenical Council to prevent the Church from bursting into a hymn of joy for her newly found full self awareness" (Paul VI, Fortes in fide, homily on the 9th anniversary of his coronation, 29 June 1972 in: Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, Roma: Libreria Editirice Vaticana, vol. X, pp. 703-709).
In the decades which followed the Council there were several attempts to put the Church of John XXIII against the Church of Pius XII. While neither hiding nor censuring the differences, even marked differences, in the sensitivity of those two men so different, the real paternity of that Council gathering can only be attributed to the latter. This was affirmed recently by the Rector of the Pontifical Lateran University, Archbishop Rino Fisichella: "What remains in many ways unknown is the influence which Pius XII had on the Second Vatican Council. His profound and prophetic teaching can be verified in the series of 43 Encyclicals which marked his Pontificate and the numerous discourses with which he tackled the most controversial questions of that epoch" (press conference to present initiatives to mark the 50th anniversary of the death of the servant of God, Pope Pius XII, 17 June 2008). From a study undertaken by Jesuit Fr. Peter Gumpel on the minutes on the Council Fathers' discussions it emerged that the Pope's name was mentioned in no less than 1,500 interventions. In the Council Document notes, Pius XII is mentioned more than 200 times, the most recurrent citation except for Sacred Scripture. In fact, as Pope Benedict XVI recalled in his discourse to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005, in the history of the Church there is never any discontinuity only 'innovation in continuity'. Pope Pius XII anticipated and prepared the Council, think of the liturgical reform he began with the encyclical Mediator Dei or the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu on the study of Sacred Scripture. So the Council brought to maturity what had been started during his Pontificate. There is no "contrast" between Pius XII and John XXIII, Paul VI underlined when he opened together the causes for the Beatification of these two predecessors.
In my hopefully successful endeavour to remove all fear of a contrast between a pre- and post-Council Church, I will tackle the question which for us is of particular interest: the Liturgy. It is in fact on this horizon that a "hermeneutics of discontinuity and fracture" (an expression used by Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on the occasion of the exchange of Christmas greetings, 22 December 2005, when the Pope took the opportunity seeing it was the 40th anniversary of the closing of Vatican II, to assess the latter's implementation. Expressing positive judgement with regard to the Council gathering, he stigmatised the attitude of some who tried to put the pre- and post-Council Church in contrast. To a "hermeneutics of discontinuity and fracture", Benedict XVI indicated for a correct understanding of Vatican II "a hermeneutics of reform and continuity". It was on the liturgical side that it was hammered into the people of God that at last there had been a change from a liturgy in which the faithful were in a position of passivity to a liturgy with authentic participation on the part of the people. The fronts at this level were many: from the liturgical language to the priest's position during the Mass; from sacred art to sacred music.
Whatever the case it would appear that "hermeneutics of discontinuity" chose "participation" as its password. Let us take a closer look. The already mentioned Instruction Redemptionis sacramentum devotes the whole of chapter 2 to the issue of participation, and in the very first lines it explains "The celebration of the Mass, as the action of Christ and of the Church, is the centre of the whole Christian life for the universal as well as the particular Church, and also for the individual faithful," (Redemptionis sacramentum, 36). The action of Christ and of the Church is the point of reference for all the faithful including the priests, therefore any attempted creativity or performance must take into account this objectivity since, this is given neither by Christ nor by the Church, nor the individual believer nor the priest. The purpose of the multiplication of roles in the liturgy was to ensure that no one plays a passive role in the celebration.
It is true that Vatican II called more than once for "actuosa participatio", "active participation" on the part of the faithful. This is usually seen as an encouragement to the faithful to desire to be freed from the 'passive' role in which they were said to be restricted by the traditional liturgy. To help us once again we will use the already mentioned book "Introduzione allo spirito della liturgia" which affirms: "In what does this active participation consist? What must be done? Unfortunately this expression was misunderstood very early on and restricted to its exterior significance, the necessity of common action, almost as if the aim were to have as many people as possible in action and as often as possible. The word participation refers instead to a principal action, in which everyone must take part". What is this actio, in which the whole assembly should participate? [. . .]. "The term actio, referred to the liturgy, in the sources means the Eucharistic Canon. Liturgical action is prayer: the great prayer which constitutes the nucleus of the liturgical celebration and precisely for this reason, as a whole was called by the Fathers, oratio. [. . .] This oratio — the solemn Eucharistic prayer, the canon — is truly more than a discourse, it is actio in the loftiest sense of the word. In it in fact human actio (as exercised up to now by priests of the different religions) gives way to actio divina, the action of God. [. . .] But how can we participate in this act? [. . .] we must pray that the (sacrifice of the Logos) may become our sacrifice, so that we, as we already said, are transformed into the Logos and become the true body of Christ: this is what it is all about. [. . .] The almost theatrical appearance of different actors as we see especially in the preparation of the offerings, passes very easily to the side of the essential. If the different exterior actions (actually not but artificially increased in number) become essential in the liturgy and the latter is degraded to a generic acting, the real theo-drama of the liturgy is overlooked and indeed is reduced to a parody" (Introduzione allo spirito della liturgia, pp. 167,168).
Does authentic participation depend on the rite or the language?
These issues, behind the formula "spirit of the Council" were tackled at the expense of the "letter of the Council". In the sense that, as an example, from recommendation for Latin to be maintained, they went as far as its "prohibition". We are therefore surprised to read at point 36 of the dogmatic Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, a peremptory affirmation: "1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites". Indeed the Constitution sets precise limits for the use of the mother tongue: 2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters". (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 36).
What is more at paragraph 54 the Sacrosanctum Concilium, after stating "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue.": says "Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them". These lines make it clear that the Council Fathers did not intend Latin to disappear from the Liturgy. The wish for "a suitable place" to be allotted to the mother tongue applies to celebrations with the faithful. For clerics trained in the traditional Liturgical language, the Sacrosanctum Concilium affirms peremptorily: "In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office." (Sacrosanctum Concilium paragraph 101). But it also said that in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly.
Since the Sacrosanctum Concilium, statements confirming the value of the use of Latin in the liturgy denouncing its unjustified disappearance have not been lacking (Cfr. Nicola Bux e Salvatore Vitiello, "Il Motu Proprio di Benedetto XVI Summorum Pontificum cura". Dossier Agenzia Fides, 1 August 2007, www.fides.org), from Paul VI to John Paul II, to the Motu Proprio di Benedict XVI, with diverse grades of authoritativeness. With the publication of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum dated 7 July 2007, Benedict XVI, affirms the unquestionable authoritativeness of the Second Vatican Council in matters of liturgy, affirms that the Missal, published in two editions by Paul VI and then a third edition with the approval of John Paul II, is still the usual form of the Eucharistic Liturgy. Whereas the last draft of the Missale Romanum, prior to the Council, published in 1962 and used during the Council, can be used as an exceptional form. The Pontiff emphasised the fact that two editions of the Roman Missal exist means not that there are "two Rites", but rather there are two ways of using the one and the same Rite.
This document of Benedict XVI, in continuity with the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei which did not describe the legitimacy in detail, regulates recourse to the old rite more clearly, therefore the Pope wished to say, simplifying its implementation that the old rite was never abolished, and that used as an exceptional form it would enrich the liturgy. Instead of a nostalgic return to the past, it is rediscovery of a modality never abolished, which, because of the international nature of the Latin language offers the Catholic Church another way in which to present her universal image to the world.
In one of his earlier books Benedict XVI, while still a Cardinal, replied to journalist Peter Seewald who asked why the Church had abandoned millennia old traditional rites lowering the level of above all the Liturgy to suit the modes of the world: "In my opinion in our liturgical reform there is a mistaken tendency to adapt the liturgy completely to the modern world" and attempting to render it more comprehensible only emphasises the intellectualistic side of knowledge; in actual fact liturgy "is understood not only in a rational manner as we would understand a conference, but as a whole, participating with all our senses and allowing oneself to be absorbed by a celebration which was not invented by a commission of experts, it comes from the profundity of millennia and in definitive, from eternity" (Joseph Ratzinger talking to Peter Seewald, "Il sale della terra. Cristianesimo e chiesa cattolica nella svolta del millennio", Edizioni san Paolo, 1997, pp. 199, 200). When the journalist insisted that the remedy to this levelling was a return to the Old Rite, the Cardinal replied: "This alone is not a solution. Personally I think we should be more generous and allow the faithful who desire it to use the old rite. I simply cannot see why this would be dangerous or unacceptable. A community is questioning itself when it suddenly prohibits something which until then appeared sacred. How could it still be credible? Will it not prohibit tomorrow what it is ordering today? Nevertheless a simple return is not the solution. Our culture in the past thirty years has changed so much that a liturgy celebrated exclusively in Latin would be an experience of insurmountable estrangement for many. What we need is new liturgical education, above all for priests. We must make it clear the liturgical science exists not to continually produce new forms [. . .] but instead to introduce the faithful to the celebration, to prepare them to accept the Mystery. We learn this from the Eastern Churches, but all religions know that the liturgy is something more than texts and rites, it lives of something that cannot be manipulated. [. . .]Places where liturgy is celebrated without frills and with reverence exercise a strong force of attraction, even when individual elements are not understood. We need places such as these, as examples to imitate. Unfortunately today there is almost unlimited tolerance for spectacular and adventurous changes, while for the old liturgy there is none whatsoever." (Il sale della terra pp. 202,203).
In the letter to Bishops to accompany the Motu Proprio, Benedict XVI clearly explains that the purpose of the document is to encourage the faithful to see both Rites as an enrichment rather than an alternative, as much of the media has led people to understand, with newspaper headlines such as: "back to the past", "adieu Mass in the local language", "Benedict XVI brings dead Latin back to life".
In the mentioned Letter the Pope writes: "the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: the new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal." [. . .] "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behoves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place." (Benedict XVI, Letter of His Holiness to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter "motu proprio data" Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, Rome 7 July 2007).
Before the Council of Trent the Church allowed various different rites and liturgies. The Council Fathers imposed on the whole Church the liturgy of the city of Rome, safeguarding among western liturgies only those which were more than two hundred years old. For example the Ambrosian Rite used in the diocese of Milan in Italy. Why not favour liturgical pluralism if this encourages the religiosity of many members of the Church who for a series of reasons were ill at ease with the new rite?
Turned away from the people or facing the Lord?
If the first of the two positions had not been introduced in an 'underhand' manner there would have been more serenity in the debate on this delicate matter. In fact presenting the matter as a return to the past responded to the ideological concern already treated. In actual fact the matter is more complicated than it is usually presented making those who dealt with it appear like a bunch of nostalgic pre-council supporters. Whereas the matter has been tackled by authoritative liturgists such as Jungmann, Bouyer, Gamber, who took part in the debate on the Liturgy during Vatican II. It is at this level that we should see the interventions of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in the interesting and documented study by Uwe Michael Lang (Cfr. Uwe Michael Lang, Rivolti al Signore. L'orientamento nella preghiera liturgica, Cantagalli editori, Siena 2006) and the theologian Rev Nicola Bux (Cfr. Nicola Bux, Dove egli dimora. Il senso dell'adorazione nella vita cristiana, Edizioni san Paolo, Cinisello Balsamo, 2005. Il teologo don Nicola Bux, docent of the Faculty of Theology of Puglia, has published several essays on liturgical matters), to mention one, with regard to the orientation of prayer (the words itself indicates facing the Orient).
In the book already mentioned "Introduzione allo spirito della liturgia", the then Cardinal Ratzinger, with regard to orientation of prayer in the liturgy, denouncing the superficiality with which the matter is often treated, after identifying continuity, although in evolution due to the newness of the Gospel, between Jewish and Christian places of worship points to a constant when he states: "Apart from all the changes, one thing is clear for Christianity, until well into the second millennium: prayer facing the east is a tradition dating back to the beginning and to a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of the cosmos and history, attachment to unicity of the history of salvation and the travelling towards the Lord who comes" (Introduzione allo spirito della liturgia, pp. 70, 71).
Especially in a epoch when, in the West, we are rightly concerned about finding a way to accept the many who want to be part of our societies with full rights, including religious rights, and whom we not rarely admire for the precision with which they practice their religious rites, there is indifference if not hostility with regard to conformation to determined canons which are the fruit of millennia of history.
Therefore, "whereas for Judaism and Islam it is still obvious that one prays facing the central place of revelation, in the western world there is a prevailing abstract thought which, in some ways, is the fruit of the evolution of Christian culture. God is spirit, God is everywhere. Surely this must mean that prayer is not connected with any place or direction?" (Introduzione allo spirito della liturgia, page 71). In fact we can pray anywhere and at any time, and this because of the universal nature of the Christian religion. Awareness of the universal nature of our faith is the fruit not of chance or of some invention of present day philosophies, but of self-communication on the part of the incarnate Word, in a precise place at a precise time.
Therefore turned towards the East means looking towards the Lord, the sun which never sets, who came and will 'come again' from the East. Usually two reasons are given for the change to have the priest facing the people: first of all he is said to represent Christ at the Last Supper at table with his apostles; secondly, the Roman Basilicas, for example St Peter's, face the West: the celebrant, to face east when he prays has to look towards the entrance door, therefore towards the people. Of course the church was oriented as far as it was possible. Where it was necessary to take into account the tomb of a martyr, like St Peter's for example, the principle was set aside.
In the above mentioned text, Cardinal Ratzinger referring to liturgist Louis Bouyer says "It is clear that in this way they misunderstood the sense of the Roman basilica and the position of the altar therein. [. . .] I cite on the subject, once again Bouyer: 'Before that date (before the 16th century) there was no indication anywhere to indicate that importance was given or attention paid to the fact that the priest celebrated with the people in front of him or behind him. As Cyrille Vogel demonstrated, the only thing that was emphasised and of which there is mention is that he should say the eucharistic prayer, and all the other prayers, facing the east . . . even when the orientation of the Church enabled the celebrant to pray facing the people when he was at the altar, not only the priests was to face the east: the whole assembly faced east with him'. With regard to the Last Supper, again citing Bouyer: 'In the early Christian times the president of an assembly at table never sat opposite the other participants. They were all seated or lying on one side of a table in the form of sigma. No one in early Christian times would have thought of putting himself in front of the people to preside a meal. Indeed the community nature of the meal was emphasised with the exact opposite arrangement, with the participants on the same side of the table' (Introduzione allo spirito della liturgia pp. 74, 75).
Participation with sacred music
Also with regard to liturgical music the idea spread that the more the hymns are within reach of the faithful the more actively the latter participate in the sacred liturgy. Indeed in the legitimate desire to involve the young generations the use of various different musical instruments was encouraged. However these strategies did not lead to more participation they simply multiplied the number of actors with a role in the celebration. In this case too the wrong interpretation of the Council's wishes completely obscured what the Council decreed.
Not by chance the Sacrosanctum Concilium dedicates a whole chapter to Sacred Music where we read that in no way was permission given to eliminate the musical legacy of tradition. The chapter opens in fact with the affirmation: "The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy." (Sacrosanctum Concilium 112).
An inestimable heritage to which not enough respect is given, imagining that the fruit of extemporaneous creativity can in itself encourage more activity. This was probably the recondito which caused the disappearance of Gregorian Chant which the Conciliar Constitution defined "chant proper to the Roman Liturgy" to which must be given "pride of place" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 116). In actual fact Gregorian Chant is absent from our liturgies because, according to the most "up to date" liturgists it involves only the scholae cantorum, while the faithful are passive spectators.
In actual fact the idea advanced that the better the people understand the better they participate. This overlooks the fundamental aspect that the faithful must remember they are before a Mystery which is present and is to be adored. The words of the then Cardinal Ratzinger in the interview/book are absolutely illuminating in this direction: "sacred music is liturgy in itself, it is not simply an embellishing accessory, the abandonment of beauty has proved to be a motive for pastoral failure. Ever more visible is the fearful impoverishment which appears where beauty is banished and only the useful is employed. Experience shows that relying on the one category of comprehensible to all in actual fact leaves our liturgies not more comprehensible and open, only poorer. Simple liturgy does not mean pitiful or cheap: there is simplicity which comes from what is commonplace and simplicity which comes from spiritual, cultural, and historical wealth. The Church's great music has been put aside for the sake of active participation: but surely participation means perceiving with the spirit, with the senses? Is there nothing active in listening, perceiving, being moved? Is this not restricting man to simply oral expression, precisely when we know that the rationally conscious within us which actually comes to the surface, is only the tip of an iceberg compared with our totality? To make this point does not mean to be against an effort to help the people sing, to be against custom music: it means being against exclusivism (only that sort of music) which neither the Council nor pastoral needs justify". And again: "A Church which is content to play only current day music, falls into ineptness and become herself inept. The Church has the duty to be also the city of glory, the place where the deepest voices of humanity are lifted up to God's ear. The Church cannot be content with the ordinary, the normal: she must awaken the voice of the Cosmos, glorifying the Creator and revealing to the Cosmos its own magnificence, rendering it beautiful, inhabitable, human" (Rapporto sulla fede …pp. 132, 133).
I think the best way to test the grade of participation in the Mystery present, celebrated and adored during the Mass is to observe the way the faithful leave after the priest has said 'the Mass is ended, go in peace'. Very often there is a rush for the door and in fact some priests wait until the end of the final hymn before saying go in peace, or they remind the people during the ever more frequent 'mini-homily', that the closing hymn is part of the prayer. We do believe this is done in good faith. Nevertheless it might be better to ask oneself if the faithful who participated in the holy liturgy which usually lasts about an hour, realise they have been witnesses to the drama, in the sacramental form, of Christ's birth, death, and resurrection, for our salvation.
What is the point in keeping people in church for a few more minutes more if their minds are already elsewhere? To keep the people's mind on what is taking place the priest should focus on the rules of good manners, encouraging a sort of reciprocal checking among those present more concerned about not looking foolish in front of the person standing next to them than about abandoning the One who embraces our whole life with all its joys and sorrows. However thank God the number of faithful who go away aware of what they have celebrated is higher than you would imagine, and it might be better rather than disturb them, to let them instead be an example to the others, with the witnesses and zeal with which they participate in the Mystery.
The principal purpose of this Dossier is to call attention to the importance of the Liturgy as the privileged place and time to stand in the presence of the Mystery which for Christianity has taken on a human face: Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God. Hence the liturgy is an eminent action of education in the sense that it introduces the faithful to the reality of the Mystery of God.
The liturgical action is born in a precise context, the company of the disciples of the Lord Jesus, which in the decades following his death and resurrection became the church of the apostles as we read in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. At first in connection with Jewish rites and then gradually the Christian liturgy assumed its own physiognomy enriching itself with aspects connected with the culture and language of the different place touched by evangelisation. Down through the centuries this process allowed art and music of great artists and composers to enter into the liturgy. Nevertheless in the decades that followed the Second Vatican Council the idea spread that creativity ended up by coinciding with discretion.
The dossier's reference documents are justified for two reasons. First of all they are texts of the Council or of the ordinary Magisterium, which because of their authoritativeness should lead people to reflect rather than consider them questionable. With regard to the reflections of eminent theologians it should not be forgotten that some of these played an authoritative role in the Council debate. Divine Providence willed that one of them, Cardinal Ratzinger, today Benedict XVI, should be called to minister as the successor of Saint Peter and therefore, although in the specific role entrusted to him by the Holy Spirit, many of his earlier reflections have flowed into his papal teaching.
The second reason, consequential to the first, is that "in the struggle, necessary in every generation, for a correct interpretation and a worthy celebration of the sacred liturgy" (From the preface by Joseph Ratzinger, in Uwe Michael Lang, Rivolti al Signore . . . p. 10) we cannot fail to return to the thought of such eminent scholars who made faithfulness to Tradition their strongpoint.
This item 8417 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
