Friday, June 4, 2010

Reading Vatican II: the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

The other day, following the sound advice of those ‘traditionalists’ who like Vatican II (yes, they do exist), I decided to read the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II. Allow me to go over some highlights from the text and several of my thoughts on the matter.

1. “The liturgy, then, is rightly seen as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. It involves the presentation of man’s sanctification under the guise of signs perceptible by the senses and its accomplishment in ways appropriate to each of these signs. In it full public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and his members.” [Chapter 1 number 7]

This paragraph is particularly interesting because it is a great summation of several Theological principles in relation to the sacred liturgy: the Mystical Body of Christ, the fittingness of the Incarnation and the proper understanding of sacraments. I will not delve into each of these now, but I will say that this paragraph perfectly reflects a dictum I have heard. The dictum is this: the Mass is a grace filled sensual experience. This dictum has helped me understand such things as why we use incense, why we ring the bells and why we must ‘eat’ God in order to receive His graces. As ‘signs,’ these sensual experiences confer (in some cases—the sacraments) and inform us of the workings of God’s graces. The incense reminds us of the sweetness of God’s love present to us through the Holy Spirit. The bells remind us of the glory and majesty of the coming of our King, the Incarnation. And the accidents of bread and wine—the taste, the feel, the smell, the sight, and sound—allow us to realize our earthly existence and our calling to something greater, something beyond beyond our senses and this natural realm. In this way, all the senses are contained in the sacrament of all sacraments, the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith—see next highlight.

2. “Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the fount from which all her power flows. For the goal of apostolic endeavor is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of his Church, to take part in the Sacrifice and to eat the Lord’s Supper.” [Chapter 1 number 10]

Just as the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, the liturgy where the Eucharist is present is the source and summit of the Church’s activities. In other words, we come together as the Mystical Body of Christ in the Liturgy in order to be nourished and renewed by the Eucharist. And the Church spreads the message of Christ, the Gospel, in order to bring others to Christ who is present in the Liturgy.

3. “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy the full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else, for it is the primary and indispensable source fro which the faithful are to desire the true Christian spirit. Therefore, in all their apostolic activity, pastors of souls should energetically set about achieving it through the requisite pedagogy.” [Chapter 1 number 4]

I think the last clause of this paragraph is particularly important. There exists a sentiment that some of the liturgy was ‘dumbed down’ after Vatican II. I do not see this to be the case. In fact, here the Council sees it to be quite the opposite, saying that in order to include everyone in the liturgy, as is the goal of liturgy, everyone should be given “the requisite pedagogy” by the “pastor of souls”, i.e. a priest. The Church does not make things ‘easier’. No, she reforms and teaches her faithful zealously so that they can be better disciples of Christ.

4. “(3) Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.” [Chapter 1 number 22]

I just thought I would add that one for good measure.

All quotations taken from the Vatican Council II: Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents translated by Austin Flannery, O.P. and published by Scholarly Resources Inc. in Wilmington, Delaware: 1975.

1 comment:

  1. Welcome to the blogosphere - nice to see your new blog!

    I wonder if you would be kind enough to expand on your point 3? There would appear to be several levels to this question (especially as posed by those of a traditional bent): (a) What did the Vatican council teach with regard to the renewal of the liturgy? (b) To what extent did the post-Vatican Liturgical Commission achieve what was anticipated by the council (c) To what extent did the various vernacular translations of the new liturgy reflect what the Latin exemplar contain and (d) To what extent did liturgical practice actually follow what was presented in the new liturgical books (vernacular or otherwise)?

    Those who claim a "dumbing down" of the liturgy especially point to (c) and (d) as responsible, although one does hear arguments as to the responsibility of (a) and (b)!