THE FAST PACE OF RENEWAL
I was a junior in high school in the fall of 1965. That was the year my home parish of Saints Peter and Paul in South Omaha was making plans to build a new church.
Our pastor, Monsignor John Juricek, who had been with us since the 1920s, had planned on a building much like the original gothic style church with a long nave. The sanctuary, cordoned off by a communion rail, would contain an altar against the front wall. Plenty of niches for statues and a choir loft on the back wall were also in the drawings.
But that year everything seemed to change and continued to change in the Church for the entire decade that followed. One Sunday, Monsignor spoke at all the Masses to announce that the old design would not do.
The bishops were meeting in Rome for the Second Vatican Council. It was clear things would be different. Monsignor felt an obligation not to build a church that would be outdated. Change was coming and we had to plan accordingly. The church would be in a fan shape. The altar would face the people. There would be no communion rail separating the altar from the people.
Monsignor wanted people to know that the liturgical changes decided at the Council had been talked about for a long time, but never officially. He recalled reading books in the seminary about the way early Christians celebrated the Liturgy. There was quiet discussion about the value of bringing some of those practices back, particularly if they were lost treasures to be recovered.
That surely was at issue when the Holy Week was restored in 1955. Later, I discovered in doing my doctoral studies in Liturgy that Monsignor gave us only part of the story. The discussions about restoring the Liturgy of the early Church dated back to the sixteenth century.
The bishops at the Second Vatican Council recognized this long history behind the liturgical renewal when they chose the date for issuing their first document, the Constitution on the Liturgy. They chose December 4, 1963, with a sense of history and purpose. It was exactly 400 years ago to the day that their predecessors in the 16th century met for the final time at the Council of Trent.
On that same date, December 4, 1563, the bishops at Trent issued a document by which they indicated how they wanted Pope Pius IV and his successors to carry on the reform of the Mass. Their goal was to return to the ancient and primitive tradition of the Fathers of the Church.
By selecting this same calendar date, December 4, four centuries later, the bishops at the Second Vatican Council were in effect saying that the unfinished agenda of the Church dating from the Council of Trent was now being addressed. They now had the advantage of recent scholarship done in the 19th and 20th centuries which rediscovered many of the writings of the Fathers of the early Church. That is why they could describe their efforts as being in continuity with an unbroken tradition of the Liturgy.
Those of us who lived through those years right after the Council will never forget how quickly things changed. It was an exciting time for me as I had entered the seminary in 1967, after high school graduation. There was a sense of being part of something that would have a lasting impact on the life of the Church and I was learning about it more each day.
Things, indeed, were moving quickly. In less than two months after the bishops issued the Constitution on the Liturgy, Pope Paul VI established a commission or Consilium to implement the reforms. This Consilium was comprised of 50 cardinals and bishops along with 200 experts from around the world. The Pope gave them two tasks. They were to revise the liturgical books in accord with the norms established by the Council and they were to provide resources to educate priests and the laity about the renewal.
They attacked this first task vigorously. This is what we witnessed:
• September, 1964, the Consilium published directives about how churches should be arranged architecturally to adapt to the reforms. The setting for Mass was to include a presidential chair, a lectern (ambo), the altar facing the people in the body of the Church, the nave.
• March, 1965, documents permitting communion under both kinds for the faithful and concelebration by priests appeared.
• March, 1967, an instruction on sacred music was issued.
• June, 1968, a revised Lectionary and a new Missal with new Eucharistic prayers were published. In this same year, we saw the beginning of a partial use of the vernacular, which became complete in 1971.
• In 1969, a new liturgical calendar, and new rites for Funerals, Infant Baptism, and Marriage were issued.
• November, 1970, the Liturgy of the Hours was revised.
• January, 1972, the Rites for the Initiation of Adults appeared.
• January, 1973, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist were introduced.
• December, 1973, we had the new form of the Rite of Penance.
Within a decade after the Constitution on the Liturgy, Catholics witnessed a reform of the Liturgy on a scale that has no precedent in the history of the Church. BUMPS IN THE ROAD
The Consilium was also given the task of educating priests and the faithful. In hindsight, we can honestly say that the work of reforming the liturgical books was much more successful than the efforts to educate priests and the faithful.
Clearly, there was an unevenness in the preparation of priests and people, if we compare efforts among various countries or language groups and even between dioceses in our own country.
Sadly, in those areas where priests received inadequate preparation, the people suffered from an equal lack of attention and preparation.
What was really missing was the link between renewal of the Liturgy and the agenda to reform the Church, which I discussed last month. For some, the changes in the liturgy were just a matter of cosmetics, making Mass relevant and by-and-large unattached from the spiritual development of Catholics which the Council envisioned. Pope John Paul II mentions these issues in his letter marking the 25th anniversary of the Council.
The first problem came in the form of liturgical abuses. Without taking into consideration the spirit and principles of authentic renewal, some people very irresponsibly introduced what the Pope refers to as "outlandish innovations" into the Liturgy for the purpose of making worship more relevant.
These sad abuses were damaging to the faith lives of people. They fostered a disrespect for true liturgical renewal and caused great confusion. Happily, this situation has been addressed and will continue to be addressed by the Church. This will take better education of liturgical leaders, priests and the faithful and calling people to accountability.
At the same time, even with better catechesis and education about the true spirit of the reforms, there still was a need to address some attitudes that were resistant to the reforms, according to the Pope.
Some people consider religious practice to be a private affair. Many people resisted the renewal of the Liturgy because they just preferred to be left alone. Being present in a passive and silent way was all they wanted when attending Mass. They found the transition to a fuller and more active participation too demanding. As a result, they received the new books and reforms with a certain indifference, without even trying to understand the reasons for the changes.
The second group, the Pope notes, were resistant simply because they did not believe that the Church could make these changes. As the Pope put it, "they turned back in a one-sided and exclusive way to the previous liturgical forms which some of them consider to be the sole guarantee of certainty of faith."
THE BOTTOM LINE
These "bumps in the road," however, should not make us lose sight of the enormous positive impact the renewal of the Liturgy has had for the life of the Church.
As I quoted in last month's article, Pope John Paul II offers an encouraging assessment as he points to how "the vast majority of the pastors and the Christian people have accepted the liturgical reform in a spirit of obedience and indeed joyful fervor."
He calls attention to the wide use of scripture, the new books and translations into the common language of people, the increased participation of the faithful, the ministries of lay people - all great blessings we have received in this time of reform. These are all signs of the "movement of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church."
WHERE DO WE GO
FROM HERE?
As I noted in last month's article, the Church has issued a new Roman Missal. While it has not yet been translated into English, we do have the introduction to the Missal, which is called the General Instruction.
This document is a rewrite of the original General Instruction of the Roman Missal of 1970. With the advantage of 30 years of pastoral experience, the Church now takes up the task of liturgical renewal once again.
It does so by emphasizing those principles which may have been neglected and which now need to be stressed if the renewal is to be meaningful in the lives of people.
Bishops have been given a major role in this effort. They are more than just moderators and guardians of the Liturgy. They must also help people "grasp interiorly a genuine sense of the liturgical texts and rites (so that they) are led to an active and fruitful celebration of the Eucharist."
For me, this starts by first returning to the original vision and the goals of the Council. We saw last month that the bishops at Vatican II identified certain challenges facing the Church.
They called for reforms in four basic areas that would allow Her to face them: 1) the personal renewal of each believer, 2) the promotion of Christian unity, 3) fostering a greater respect for the rich diversity in other cultures, and 4) a greater openness in solidarity to all of humanity.
Or, to say it another way, liturgical renewal can only be properly understood as but the first step in the overall program to reform the Church. We need to constantly draw attention to this link between liturgical renewal and the reform of the Church.
Only then can we really appreciate the Church's very serious agenda when it comes to ongoing renewal of our worship.
This is not about change for change sake. There is a more serious agenda. It is about making the Church more effective in its mission of being a Light to the Nations.
It also means paying attention to the way good Liturgy happens. That is why the bishops at the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council wanted to return to the ancient practices and norms of Christian worship found in the Fathers of the Church.
These early traditions put us in touch with how the Liturgy, when celebrated faithfully, can be the summit and source of our Christian life. Good Liturgy always does that when due attention is paid to those principles and practices of Christian worship that have a perennial value.
The new General Instruction aims at doing just that by introducing some adjustments in the Liturgy that can bring to light the importance of such principles. Examples would be the need for full and active participation of the faithful, an understanding of Liturgy as a dialogue between God and humanity, the need for clear and understandable liturgical signs, and the respect of the various roles and functions in the Liturgy.
Next month I will conclude this series on liturgical renewal by taking up three questions: What changes will you notice in the revised Roman Missal? Why are these changes being made? What does this mean for our diocese and our commitment to ongoing renewal of the Liturgy and the Church.
|
_a.gif)
