Blessed is the Kingdom

Seeking The Kingdom In All Things

Beginning with the Liturgy

The first document of the Second Vatican Council was the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. All Church documents get their names from the first two words of the text, or sometime the first three words if there is a older document that begins with the same words. The official language of the Church is still Latin, so even to this day documents are written and named in this ancient language and then translated into the vernacular.

The first paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium set the tone for not only the document on the liturgy, but for the entire council.

The Sacred Council has set out to impart an ever-increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more closely to the needs of our age those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call all mankind into the Church’s fold. Accordingly it sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

Probably the most visible sign of change that came about from the council centers around the liturgy.  It is very hard to miss things like the change in orientation of the priest at the celebration of the Eucharist and the rapid shift from the use of Latin to an almost completely vernacular liturgy.  These outward changes I would argue are only changes on the surface level. The goal of the council was to reform the liturgy in such a way that the Church could achieve the goals set out in this first paragraph. They are lofty goals.

First the council set out to give more vigor to the Christian life. In many ways I believe changes in the liturgy have achieved this goal.  Because more people are able to understand what is being said when we gather for Eucharist each week, more people have been able to enter more deeply into the prayer. That being said, there are still those who hold on to a minimalistic approach when it comes to the Eucharist.  Every weekend at mass I am disturbed by the numbers of the Christian faithful who walk out of our celebration before we have finished.  It takes much more than a simple change in language to call people to a greater vigor when it comes to prayer and action in the Christian life. While on the one hand it seems strange to me that so many people hear the words of our common prayers week after week and they don’t sink in, I must admit that I never really paid attention to the words of the Eucharistic Prayers until I was in high school. Once I started to listen, I began to understand much more about my own faith and to find ways each day to live it.

The second stated goal was to adapt those things that are able to be changed to our modern age.  My own observations is that we have made great strides forward in this area by adapting the liturgy to various languages and cultures around the world.  One of the great blessings of having attended Mundelein Seminary in Chicago was the international nature of our student body. As a result we often celebrated the liturgy in different languages, with different musical styles, etc. This taught me two things. First, it allowed me to see with more clarity the elements of the liturgy that remained the same, no matter what culture. This allowed me to then see how my own American culture influenced how I had been taught to pray.  Much of what we see each week at the mass is more of a product of culture rather than of liturgical form.  Second, it showed me the richness that is present in our church. It is much richer than it would be if we were limited to practicing the faith in one culture alone.  The danger, however, is when parts of any culture are at odds with our faith or our tradition. One thing that often disturbs me in the US Catholic Church is how much our worship resembles a protestant service. It should not surprise anyone that there is an underlying protestant culture in the United States that permeates everything we do. The founding documents of our country resemble very closely the Presbyterian Book of Order. While we share much in common with other Christians, there are some significant differences that Catholics ought not  forget. One other area of our culture that has crept into the liturgy that I do not find useful is that we have become more and more casual, even in church. While I would never be one to argue that someone should be denied entrance to the church because of the way they are dressed, I would make the argument that we have forgotten that Sunday liturgy qualifies as a formal occasion.

The third goal of promoting Christian unity is one that is just as important now as it was when the council was in session. It is a great scandal that Christians are separated into as many different groups as we are. Vatican II opened the door for much more dialogue and movement towards unity than I would guess anyone could have imagined at the time.  Catholics have made significant progress when it comes to ecumenism. Often these days I hear those who lament that we seem to have back away from the kinds of ecumenical dialogue and interaction that characterized the time immediately following the council. In many ways I share the sentiment that we seem to have become weary because greater progress has not been made towards unity.  Some of this may stem from an overly optimistic attitude that believed our differences could be easily resolved. Focusing on our common belief and practice as Christians is certainly praiseworthy and valuable in the realm of ecumenism, but I think we must admit that there are real differences that have to be worked through, some of which go back 1,000 years. While I am still optimistic that we will continue to move towards closer unity, I don’t expect a perfect unity to appear overnight.

The last goal is one that we have had since Jesus gave us the great commission, that being to draw all mankind into the Church in order that they may be saved. My guess is that we will have that goal before us until the second coming of Christ.

This is a long reflection on a few short sentences that opened the first document of the council, but it is hard for comments not to become long when one is dealing with such rich passages. When you read this first paragraph, what is your response? How well has the reform of the liturgy done in accomplishing these goals over the past 40 years in your opinion? I look forward to your thoughts.

Related Posts:

Tags: , , , ,


This entry was posted by on Wednesday, August 11th, 2010 at 10:52 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

About The Author

Fr. Christian is the pastor of St. Thomas the Apostle Church in Lenoir City, TN.

Comments

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    By the way….for Greg, Phil, Rob and all the other Protestant friends out there, I am not trying to in any way criticize your tradition, but believe many Catholics in their focus on the commonalities of Christian faith, have lost some of the uniqueness of our own.

  • http://www.fromthepulpitofmylife.blogspot.com/ Ruth Ann

    That one paragraph says so much!

    “The Sacred Council has set out to impart an ever-increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful”

    How do we “measure” the ever-increasing vigor? Is it what happens at Mass only or does it radiate out from Mass to a fruitful and faithful daily life in Christ?

    For those who are, in fact, faithful to the liturgy, changes have occurred over the decades since the reforms were implemented. Before V2, the lay role at Mass was comparatively passive. No one in the assembly said a word aloud, except the altar servers. After V2, the laity have a vocal role throughout the Mass. Many lay persons also have special roles, like lectors and extraordinary ministers of Communion. Outside of Mass many lay Catholics now ppray Liturgy of the Hours privately. One of the fruits of the Mass happens when we are told “The Mass is ended. Go out to love and serve the Lord.” So many do, in fact, find ways to serve in a variety of ecclesial ministries, catechesis, which used to be exclusively the role of Sisters or priests, visiting the sick and bringing the Communion, participating on parish councils. These are some of the many ways that the spiritual life of the faithful has been invigorated.

    “to adapt more closely to the needs of our age those institutions which are subject to change”

    I agree with many of your points on this goal, but, never having been a Protestant, I don’t know what you mean by, “One thing that often disturbs me in the US Catholic Church is how much our worship resembles a protestant service.” What elements seem Protestant to you? What kind of a Protestant service? Are Protestant services terrible in some way that makes it a negative in Catholic circles? Lot’s of Protestants don’t even have a liturgical ritual, but they have preaching, and I’ve heard the preaching is often very good compared with Catholic preaching. So, Fr. Mathis, maybe you could be more specific about this issue.

    “we have become more and more casual, even in church.” Yes, noticed this, too. Truly, I think many are clueless about appropriate dress because it is no longer modeled in society at large. But, I also think the clergy are not instructing the faithful about reverence for the sacred and about proper conduct in Church. it is a sensitive issue, that’s for sure. If nothing comes from the parish leader, then the conclusion is he doesn’t care or it’s not important, so why should anyone else think differently?

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    You have some excellent thoughts and questions Ruth Ann. I will do my best to comment and to respond.

    I am certain that by “ever-increasing vigor” the council fathers did not simply mean to limit how we measure this to the liturgy, but they did begin with the liturgy as the starting point. Beginning with the Eucharist seems to be the correct place to begin the focus as it is the center of our life as Catholic Christians. There is a well established adage in the Church that the way in which we worship determines the way we will believe. I love to see the faithful praying in other ways such as the Liturgy of the Hours those prayers are meant to deepen our prayer when we are gathered together for the Eucharist as well as allowing the effects to linger. Certainly our worship should lead to the kinds of action in the world that you describe and those actions, be they official ministries or simply the raising of a family ought to lead us back to the community of prayer. In this regard, I would agree that we seem to have made significant progress.

    Thanks for the challenge to be more specific with regards to what I mean by Protestant. First I should say that I grew up in a family that was, aside from my convert parents and siblings, completely Protestant. This included family members who were ministers of other denominations. I learned a great deal from them over the years, one thing that stands out being a familiarity with the Bible that I might not have had to the same degree simply from Catholic school. The Bible wasn’t absent from my life as a Catholic, but it didn’t have the same emphasis as other things did.

    There are certainly positive things to be found in many non-Catholic settings. You mentioned preaching as one of them and I would tend to agree that as a whole preaching is excellent in Protestant circles. My own theory on why this is the case is the focus there is more upon the Scripture due to the lesser emphasis on the sacramental nature that we celebrate in the liturgy each week. One might also say that a group like the Quakers can give us a pretty good lesson on the value of silence.

    A couple of examples of what I would consider as not being helpful I can point to would be adaptations for the sake of relevance. My own belief is that the Eucharist is always relevant, so we need not do things to it to make it so. When I arrived at my first assignment, a parishioner who had been involved in LifeTeen asked if I could change the words of the sending rite to say, “The mass never ends, it must be lived.” The problem in my mind with this is that the mass does indeed end, and as you say we are then sent into the world. I have also been to liturgies where the words to the creed were changed because “it made the music sound better” and the mass more “relevant”. I would argue it makes it less relevant. One big place that I have seen this is in the area of a desire to have “praise and worship” music at the mass. There are of course many places where much of this music is appropriate in the liturgy, but I have too frequently seen choirs turn into a “band” that pays no attention to the appropriateness of the liturgical season or to the needs of those gathered being led and supported in music. In many of our neighboring Protestant congregations there would be no problem with this, as they are not following a liturgical calendar, but for us it would be important. Perhaps the best way to describe my worry is that many times I feel there are things that lead us toward simply coming to church to be entertained, rather than coming to put our full self into participating. I have Protestant friends who will leave Church and on the way home say, “that was a good service.” I would hope that we as Catholics would never fall into judging the liturgy simply based upon whether the music or the homily was good or bad. Those things can enhance our worship, but participating in Christ’s saving actions is always good.

    One last area that I would mention is what I would characterize as iconoclasm in many Catholic church buildings. Many clergy, in the name of the spirit of the council, removed many of the images that used to be found in churches such as statues, art, etc. I understand the rationale of trying to focus people on what is happening at the altar, but part of the liturgy is the recognition that we are joining the saints who worship in heaven. When one looks at many of the church building built before the council, it is easy to tell they were built with the idea that the building itself could teach the faith. Certainly there is a cost factor (In my current church we have very limited art due to financial issues) and the Church is not a building, but the people who gather in it, but when we begin to build more and more churches that have only a minimum of Catholic symbols, we begin to lose that part of our identity.

    I agree with you that the clergy can always do more in instructing the faithful about the sacred, but then again the faithful hold some responsibility as well. I don’t believe our beliefs and Christian practices hinge entirely upon the clergy. This is an area where I have a hard time understanding how we got to where we currently are. I can remember a time as a child when we were extremely reverent. Almost everyone was dressed in their best clothes each week (differing of course due to what people could afford), when people remained kneeling until the collect that the end of the liturgy of the eucharist, when very few people left mass early, etc. And now I see where so many of our parishes have become much more casual. But I don’t recall how the change occurred. Perhaps we were focused too much on the transcendent nature of God before and now the focus has swung too far to the other side, but as a whole I believe many of us, clergy included, have forgotten the proper attitude required when approaching the holy. I can at least assure you that I attempt to teach this, but it is a sensitive issue and not one that is going to easily be addressed.

    Hope this comment helps. I predict our comments are the beginning of a string of long comments ahead in these discussion on the council and the church today.

  • Greg J.

    Don’t worry, I wasn’t offended in the least. I don’t have a problem with you criticizing the Protestant tradition. If have given your life to serve the Catholic church; it would only reason that there are things in the Protestant church that you find in error. You have always tried to be fair and loving in your assessments, so I am always happy to hear what you have to say.

    The only point of clarification that I would offer is that Protestantism is a very broad movement. Something that is true for one group may not be for others. But the topics that you mentioned – prominence of preaching of the Word, issues with “contemporary” worship are pretty wide spread across many groups at one level or another Many churches share your concerns about worship and it has been an area of great conflict for quite a few years now.

    Looking forward to more installments…

  • Greg J

    oops meant to say “you have” not “if have”. Also, “given your life to serve the Catholic church” was not meant to imply that your service is not ultimately to the Lord

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Hey Greg,

    I hope that these posts on Vatican II focus more on the challenges our own church has faced in the years of implementation after the council. It is always a tricky thing to reach out to others outside your own tradition, as the council clearly urged Catholics to do while maintaining one’s own identity. I am certain it requires Christians deeply rooted in their faith, for the best dialogue to happen.

  • http://happyentanglements.blogspot.com Mark G.

    Father, you & I agree on many of these points & especially your response to Ruth Ann. A few things caught my attention, though…

    In your introduction, you somewhat danced around the examples of the priest’s orientation versus populum (as if it’s a fight; sometimes it seems so!) & the complete ix-naying of the Roman language out of the Roman liturgy, noting that the changes “came about from the council.” Of course, the Council never mandated either, & many of the Council Fathers vocally deploted the changes. In fact, the Council said that Latin should be preserved as the Roman liturgical language, while the vernacular could be allowed by permission where appropriate. It never mentioned a change in priestly orientation. How we got what we got is real creepy mystery when you start digging into it.

    I hope in your exposition of SC you will be careful to discern what the Council actually promulgated versus what the consilium did on their own, often flying in the face of the Council mandates & a Roman liturgical tradition going back to the 500′s or earlier (yes, Pope Paul VI signed the Moto Proprio, but seemed to do so with great reservation & regret himself). I greatly wish the Council would not have adjurned until the revised liturgy was completed & approved, but what’s that they say about wishes & buts…?

    Regarding the first point on liturgical minimalism: Fr. Benedict Groeschel mentioned on his Sunday night EWTN program that he got in trouble as a young priest because he wanted to say the ‘old’ Mass slowly, carefully, & solemnly – even the Low Mass. However, today a lot of priests never use the Roman Canon & always use Eucharistic Prayer II. Why? It’s shorter. Lead by example, Fathers. If you want your people to be fully engaged, you should be, too (not you, Fr. C – you usually pray the Canon. Thanks!).

    As for the people, I’m all for liturgical bouncers that ‘gently encourage’ the people to return to their seats unless they have blood gushing from a severed limb or something. I think the Eastern “The Doors! The Doors!” can work in both directions. The dress is generally deplorable. It’s mostly ignorance, but also poor catechesis from teachers & discipline from parents. Neither hot pants on women or sports jerseys or ball caps on men should ever been seen at Mass. Modesty & purity as compared to the world at large used to be the calling card of Christianity. It’s unfathomable what people wear to Mass these days, let alone outside of church.

    Second point: Having traveled the world (& having just been to Mass at the Hangzhou cathedral in China), I can say for myself & others how wonderful it would be to have the same liturgy in the same language wherever we went. That’s where the real Unam, Sanctam, Catolicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam manifests itself, in my opinion. Currently, there’s just too many options & variations.

    Also, the vernacular can divide as well as unite. Our Spanish-speaking parishioners at St. Thomas are forever relegated to the Saturday night ghetto. What an opportunity for building community a beautiful & solemn Latin liturgy would be.

    Also, our liturgy looks a lot like a Protestant service because the Concilium was heavily invested with favored liberal Lutheran theologians (liberal as in, taking liberties with things you shouldn’t). The versus populum orientation has single-handedly created the folksy, conversational, & ubiquitous “Fr. O’Malley Variety Hour” all across this great nation. The priest is the servant of the Liturgy, & nowhere is this better to be seen than when the priest prays Mass ad orientem. Frankly, I don’t come to see you; you’re not that good-looking or interesting (at least compared to God!). It’s just near impossible to escape the entertainer/audience dynamic with the priest facing the people.

    Third & fourth pionts: basically agreed, with this caveat: the Catholic viewpoint on ecumenism is the reunification of Christianity as before the Great Schism of 1054 (date?). While not ecumi-friendly to say so, this realy means that, ultimately, everyone should becomes Catholic; but not in a limited denominational sense, but in a true universal sense.

    Sorry, Father – you know I get psycho when I’m traveling.

  • http://www.fromthepulpitofmylife.blogspot.com/ Ruth Ann

    Fr. Mathis, when I alluded to the need for parish leaders/pastors to instruct the faithful about reverence and proper attire for Mass, I didn’t mean that individual faithful bear no responsibility. But, I think the sphere of responsibility depends on one’s level of authority. As parents my husband and I exercised authority in such matters with our daughter by way of modeling proper decorum and dress. Maybe we influenced others. Maybe not. What parents need is some back up from those in the parish with more authority.

    How did we get from the times of reverence and wearing “our Sunday best” to such casualness? It happened very gradually. Twenty years ago, I was shocked when men, women, and youth began wearing jeans to church in our small, rural Wisconsin, Catholic Church. This was a no in our family. Later, I saw T shirts and men without ties. When I moved to California, where the climate is milder, I saw shorts on men, women, and children, flip-flops for shoes. Recently the shorts on some girls have been so short I want to blush. I see men in tight shorts proper for bicycle riding, and women/girls with spaghetti strap or worse tops/blouses/dresses.

    It happened gradually, though, and no one says anything. At least not in an official capacity.

    This egregious attire is not a matter of finances. There are nice clothes at rummage sales and resale shops that anyone could afford.

    The part about people being clueless has to do with those who have NEVER been exposed to proper dress in the first place. Many public schools don’t seem to require appropriate clothing any more. My husband says that many men and women don’t dress well at work. My friend who worked in human resources at a large corporation said she had to sit down with young women and explain the way to dress for the work environment.

    So that’s my take on the clothing issue.

    As for reverence, maybe there is a connection between the clothing and how we behave. One doesn’t see a lot of reverence at the beach or at a picnic. So, if people dress that way in church, maybe there’s a carry over. Just speculating.

  • http://happyentanglements.blogspot.com Mark G.

    Ruth Ann’s hit that nail pretty squarely!

    In many poorer parts of the world I’ve visited, people still dress decently for Mass; but in worldly & wise U.S., few seem to care.

    “God doesn’t care what you wear to church,” they protest. As if there was something God didn’t care about.

    We’ve just forgotten a important point about being Catholic Christians: we must worship the One who created our whole being with our whole being. Adam & Eve may have been naked in the Garden, but the saints in glory are robed in white.

  • http://happyentanglements.blogspot.com Mark G.

    Speaking of casualness…

    I just returned from Mass at the Hangzhou cathedral, built in 1661 by Jesuit missionary collegues of Matteo Ricci. It’s a beautiful place with a handful or beautiful windows, a nice altar, a lifesize crucifix set in a kind of mural of Golgotha in the apse. It also has a good pipe organ, statues of Mary & Joseph, & high-quality Stations. The Corinthian-capped fluted columns & crystal chandeliers are excellent, too. Everything needed to raise one’s mind to God.

    However, it seems that the younger crowd needs a little lesson in modesty and propriety. Yes, it’s blistering hot here & the church has no AC, only a few ceiling fans, but a large number of the women are wearing the latest imported Western fashion – a tiny T-shirt top, the shortest of short shorts, & stiletto heels. Most of the young men just dress like slobs, usually with a sports T-shirt & baggy shorts. Still, other guys wear collared shirts & many of the ladies wear lovely dresses.

    It’s also disheartening how many cell phones went off during Mass. Everyone in China has the absolute latest phone & are calling or being called all the time. All of the ring tones are Chinese pop songs. When in public, most folks usually talk at least twice as loud as a normal conversation. Fortunately, I did not actually see or hear anyone answer their phone; but it wouldn’t surprise me either. It did look like a few were checking messages during the 30-minute homily, though.

    The standard Chinese way of receiving Holy Communion is to receive it in the left hand & press it with your right hand, like you’re trying to hold a butterfly or something. Then as you step away from the minister, you lift your top hand & sort of lick the Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, Our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ off the palm of your left hand. It’s very awkward & in American “culture,” it could be nothing but disrespectful.

    As I was concluding that this was really not a very good practice, having watched several folks nearly drop the Host trying to do all this hand/tongue jive, I watched in dismay as someone did drop the host! This always upsets me greatly. I’m sure the man didn’t do it intentionally, but I think there’s a reason why Communion on the tongue is the standard way to receive in the Roman Rite (& anything else is allowed only as an exception with permission – even if that permission happens to be nearly universal in the west right now): theological implications of being fed by Christ instead of feeding yourself aside, the very method ensures a successful reception of Holy Communion, whereas individuals do all sorts of things that increase the chance of dropping the Host.

    And another reason why Communion on the tongue is the best of other options – it has the greatest chance of ensuring consumption of the Host, for once the “accidents” come into contact with saliva, they begin to disolve, making it much more difficult for someone to take a Host away unconsumed. At this Mass, I saw someone receive a host in the hand & press it with his other hand as I’ve tried to describe above, then just walk down the long side aisle &, I’m almost certain, out the door! I very nearly jumped up to block him, but since I don’t speak the language, this probably would have caused a huge scene. Still, that was just plain wrong.

    After this, seeing all this, I just put my closed my eyes & prayed. Sorry for being so wordy, but not being able to recieve the Eucharist myself at this time, it really upsets me when due care & seriousness are not given to Holy Communion.

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Mark,

    I would encourage you to practice more praying with your eyes closed if the things around you cause you to fall into the kind of distraction you describe here. I remember as a teen spending most of my time during communion watching everyone who went by me, more out of entertainment than anything else, and then deciding one day to either sing or focus inward. It made a significant difference in deepening my experience of prayer.

  • Mark G.

    You are right, Father. And I usually do, but it’s very difficult when in such an alien enviroment. I also usually try to find a pew near the front to reduce the number of distractions during Mass.

    One thing this touches on is what happens after Communion. The few minutes after receiving is when Christ is closest & most intimate with us. This is the precious time of all – the real resting in God – & I wish it could be emphasized as such. As an example, you can feel the irritation rise in the congregation if the sacred silence after Communion lasts more than about 20 seconds. If it was 2 minutes, I’m sure there would be a riot!

  • http://laudemgloriae.blogspot.com Christine

    Ruth Ann wrote: “Before V2, the lay role at Mass was comparatively passive. No one in the assembly said a word aloud, except the altar servers.”

    This is not quite correct. Fifty years before Vatican II, Pope St. Pius X said, “Do not pray at the Mass, but pray the Mass.” He encouraged the faithful to learn and say aloud, as well as sing, all the Latin responses during Mass–which they did. True, there were no lay lectors or extraordinary ministers–but these days, with the unnecessary proliferation of EMHCs at most Masses, and the tendency for laity to confuse their roles with that of clergy, I wonder how much of a benefit such reforms have been…

  • http://laudemgloriae.blogspot.com Christine

    And your observations are spot on, Father. The lack of reverence in modern parishes today is disheartening, to say the least. The last parish I attended, almost no one genuflected before the Tabernacle, very few people ever even bothered to visit Jesus in the Tabernacle (frankly, many of them didn’t even understand He was there), people consistently left early, and the choice of music (and dress) was just very frustrating. Each Sunday I’d do my best to grin and bear it, and would interiorly offer up any frustration in atonement for my own sins. But week after week of this for several years was too much; I couldn’t leave there fast enough. The problem is that the priests–God bless them–never said a word about any of it, and in fact didn’t seem to notice a problem. The effect is to drive parishioners (like me) away in search of more reverent climes (which I’ve since found, thankfully). True, the pews there are packed and the church has an active and bustling community–but half the parishioners don’t even believe in transubstantiation, or they’re contracepting, pro-choice, or cohabiting (or divorced and remarried). I wonder–is it really success to have high numbers when so many of them can’t be bothered to obey Church teaching?

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Christine,

    Sometimes it isn’t that priests don’t notice a problem, but rather that the solutions aren’t always simple. We live in a society where most people are not swayed to action by authority and my guess is that most priests believe that having people connected in some way to the Church is better than them not being there at all. After all, if they are showing up for mass, then there is the possibility of growth. I do think that we as priests actually have to be the ones to set expectations, however. This is difficult as I believe it is always better to do this in a way that is firm, but gentle. I imagine that is what any good parent does with a child as well.

    Thanks for the comments!

«     »