The
Mass of Vatican II
By Fr. Joseph Fessio S.J.
Fr. Fessio, S.J., is the founder and
editor of
Ignatius Press.
Formerly a professor of theology at the University of San Francisco,
he is now the Chancellor of Ave
Maria University in Naples, Florida.
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, in latin
“Sacrosanctum Concilium,” was one of two documents
issued on the same day, December 4, 1963, the first two documents issued
by the Second Vatican Council. The other document, “Inter
Mirifica,” is on social communication. Sacrosanctum Concilium
is one of the most important documents of the Council, one that has
been the least understood and, I believe, has wrought the most havoc
— not by having been fulfilled — but by having been ignored
or misinterpreted.
Now there should be no argument about the central intent of the Council
concerning the liturgy. The Council actually spells out its intent,
in paragraph 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium: “Mother Church
earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full,
conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations, which
is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.” The key words
here are “full, conscious, and active participation.”
The Latin for “active participation” is actuosa participatio.
No
Innovations Unless the Good of the Church Requires Them
In the same paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 14, the
Council continues: “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred
liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the
aim to be considered before all else.” So the Council itself defines
the primary aim of liturgical renewal: full, conscious and active participation.
How does the Council initially intend for the aim to be achieved? That,
also, is not something we have to guess at or speculate on: “And,
therefore, pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it by means
of the necessary instruction in all their pastoral work.” The
Council’s idea is clear: the liturgy is to be renewed by promoting
more active participation through the means of greater education. Nothing
whatsoever is said here about any kind of changes or reform of the rite
itself. Later, when changes are discussed, the Council states in paragraph
23: “There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church
genuinely and certainly requires them.” So no changes unless there
is a real, proven, demonstrable need.
Paragraph 23 continues: “And care must be taken
that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from
forms already existing.” Organic growth — like a plant,
a flower, a tree — not something constructed by an intellectual
elite, not things fabricated and tacked on, or brought back from ten
centuries ago, or fifteen centuries ago, but an organic growth. That’s
what the Council itself said.
Paragraph 48 begins the chapter on the Mass. And the
title of this chapter is interesting. It’s not called “The
Eucharist” or “The Mass”; it’s called “The
Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist.” Even in the chapter title,
you have the sense that what’s important is mystery, sacredness,
awe, the transcendence of God.
Paragraph 48 returns to the theme of greater awareness,
a greater knowledge of the faithful, in order that they might enter
more fully into the mysteries celebrated: “For this reason the
Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when
present at the mystery of faith should not be there as strangers or
silent spectators. On the contrary, through a good understanding of
the rites and prayers, they should take part in the sacred action conscious
of what they are doing with devotion and full collaboration.”
Then, in Paragraph 49, the document says, “For this reason the
sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with
assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and Feasts of Obligation,
has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass,
even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious
in the fullest degree.”
Paragraphs 50 to 58 contain nine specific changes
the Council had in mind for the renewal of the liturgy. But before we
consider them, we must recall that when the Council made these proposals,
it didn’t dream them up overnight. Although this was the first
document issued at the Council, it was not issued without long preparation.
The modern liturgical movement began in the middle of the 19th century.
It was given great impetus by Pius X himself, in the beginning of the
20th century, and by years of study, prayer, and liturgical congresses
during the first half of the century. In fact, after Mediator Dei in
1947, there were seven international liturgical conferences, attended
by liturgical experts, by pastors and by Roman officials. If you read
the minutes of those meetings and the concrete proposals they made,
you will see that what the Council outlines here is the fruit of those
meetings. This is really the distillation of the prayer and reflection
that was the culmination of the liturgical movement, which had existed
for over a century prior to the Council.
Nine
Proposals
What are the nine liturgical proposals, or the nine liturgical
mandates, of the Council?
Paragraph 50 says the rites are to be simplified and
those things that have been duplicated with the passage of time or added
with little advantage, are to be discarded. And, after the Council,
this reform did take place in many ways. I think it took place to a
much greater degree than the Council intended, but there are certain
simplifications in the Mass that the Council clearly intended.
Paragraph 51: The treasures of the Bible are to be
opened up more fully. That has been accomplished by a greater number
of readings from the Bible interspersed throughout the liturgical cycle,
both in the Sunday and weekday cycles. Now, especially if you attend
daily Mass, you have a much richer fare, if you will — a much
expanded selection of Biblical readings.
Paragraph 52 says: “The homily is to be highly
esteemed as part of the Liturgy itself.” The Council called for
a greater effort to have good homilies and I think the effort has been
made. Whether the homilies are better or not, you can judge for yourselves.
Paragraph 53 says that the Common Prayer or Prayer of the Faithful should
be restored, and that’s been done, too.
Paragraph 54 is a key paragraph: “In Masses
which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted
to their mother tongue.” What did the Council have in mind? Let’s
continue: “This is to apply in the first place, to the readings
and to the Common Prayer. But also as local conditions may warrant,
to those parts which pertain to the people.” Yet it goes on to
say, “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” — (that is, the unchanging parts,
the parts that are there every day) — “which pertain to
them.”
So, the Council did not abolish Latin in the liturgy. The Council permitted
the vernacular in certain limited ways, but clearly understood that
the fixed parts of the Mass would remain in Latin. Again, I am just
telling you what the Council said.
Paragraph 55 discusses receiving Communion, if possible,
from hosts consecrated at the Mass in which you participate. That is
often done or attempted in many parishes today, but it is difficult
to do in a precise way. It’s hard to calculate the exact number
of hosts you will need. Also, you have to keep some hosts in the Tabernacle
for the sick and for adoration. The Council also permits Communion under
both species here, but under very limited circumstances. For example,
“to the newly ordained in the Mass of the Sacred Ordination, or
the newly professed in the Mass of Profession, and the newly baptized
in the Mass which follows baptism.” The Council itself did not
call for offering both species to all the faithful all the time, but
it did grant limited permission for it.
Paragraph 56 says that there are two parts of the
Liturgy, the Word and the Eucharist, and that a pastor should insistently
teach the faithful to take part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays
and Feasts of Obligation. That is, to consider the first part of the
Mass, the Table of the Word, as a significant and essential part of
the Mass, so you don’t think you have gone to Mass just by coming
after the Offertory and being there for the Consecration and Communion.
Paragraph 57 states that concelebration should be
permitted; paragraph 58, that a new rite for concelebration is to be
drawn up.
That is the sum total of the nine mandates of the Council for change
in the ritual itself, although there are a few other pertinent paragraphs
to mention here.
In paragraph 112, in which the Council speaks specifically of music,
we read: “The musical tradition of the Universal Church is a treasure
of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art.”
That is a stupendous and shocking statement; the Council actually says
that the Church’s music is a treasure of art greater than any
other treasure of art she has. Think about that. Think about Chartres
Cathedral. Think about the Pieta. Think about Da Vinci’s Last
Supper. Think of all the crucifixes from Catalonia in Spain, and all
the Church architecture and art and paintings and sculpture. The Council
boldly says that the Church’s musical tradition is a treasure
of inestimable value greater than any other art.
But the Council would be remiss in making such a shocking statement
without giving a reason for it: “The main reason for this preeminence
is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or
integral part of the solemn liturgy.” What that means is this:
it’s wonderful to have a beautiful church, stained glass windows,
statues, a noble crucifix, prayerful architecture that lift your heart
up to God. But those are all surroundings of the Mass. It’s the
“worship environment,” as they would say today. But it’s
not the Mass itself. The Council says that when the Mass itself is set
to music, that’s what enobles music, which itself enhances the
Mass; and that’s what makes the musical tradition the most precious
tradition of the Church.
Notice, however, that the Council implies what many Church documents
have said explicitly — that the most perfect form of music at
Mass is not the hymns, the so-called “Gathering hymn” and
its antithesis — I guess you would call it the “Scattering
hymn” — at the end. The most appropriate use of music at
Mass, as seen by Church tradition and reaffirmed by the Council, is
singing the Mass itself: the Kyrie, the Agnus Dei, the Sanctus, the
Acclamations, the Alleluias and so on. Again, this isn’t Father
Fessio’s pet theory; this is what the Council actually says. Paragraph
112 adds, “Sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion
as it is the more closely connected with the liturgical action itself.”
This reinforces my point.
Paragraph 114 adds: “The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved
and fostered with great care.” Then in Paragraph 116 we find another
shocker: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially
suited to the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it
should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” That’s
what the Council actually said. If you are in a parish which prides
itself on living the spirit of Vatican II, then you should be singing
Gregorian chant at your parish. And if you’re not singing the
Gregorian Chant, you’re not following the specific mandate of
the Second Vatican Council.
What
the Council Didn’t Say
That’s essentially what the Second Vatican Council actually
said about the renewal of the liturgy. Let me tell you what it did not
say. The Council did not say that tabernacles should be moved from their
central location to some other location. In fact, it specifically said
we should be concerned about the worthy and dignified placing of the
tabernacle. The Council did not say that Mass should be celebrated facing
the people. That is not in Vatican II; it is not mentioned. It is not
even raised in the documents that record the formation of the Constitution
on the Liturgy; it didn’t come up. Mass facing the people is not
a requirement of Vatican II; it is not in the spirit of Vatican II;
it is definitely not in the letter of Vatican II. It is something introduced
in 1969.
And, by the way, never in the history of the Church, East or West,
was there a tradition of celebrating Mass facing the people. Never,
ever, until 1969. It happened occasionally in Germany, in between the
wars; it was done sometimes at the castle where Romano Guardini would
have his group of students meet; it was done in Austria near Vienna
by Pius Parsch in a special church, in what he called a “liturgical
Mass.” That’s an odd expression, a “liturgical Mass.”
The Mass is the liturgy.
But in any event, I can say without fear of contradiction from anyone
who knows the facts that there is simply no tradition whatsoever, in
the history of the Church, of Mass facing the people. Now, is it a sin?
No. Is it wrong? No. Is it permitted? Yes. Is it required? Not at all.
In fact, in the Latin Roman Missal, which is the typical edition that
all the translations of the Missal are based on (not always translated
properly, but at least based on it), the rubrics actually presuppose
the Mass facing East, the Mass facing the Lord.
Now, for the first 25 years of my priesthood, I celebrated Mass like
you see it when you go to a typical parish: in English, facing the people.
It can be done reverently; I’ve seen it done reverently; I’ve
tried to do it reverently myself. But in the last three years, after
study and reflection, I’ve changed. I actually think the Mass
facing the people is a mistake. But, even if it’s not, at least
this much we can say: there is no permission required to say Mass facing
God, facing the tabernacle, facing East, facing with the people. And
it should be given equal rights, it seems to me, with Mass facing the
people. It’s been around for 1800 years at least, and it should
be allowed to continue. I happen to think it’s symbolically richer.
It’s true that when the priest faces the people for the celebration
of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, there may be a sense of greater unity
as a community. But there is also a danger of the priest being the performer
and you being the spectator — precisely what the Council did not
want: priest performers and congregational spectators. But there is
something more problematic. You can see it, perhaps, by contrasting
Mass facing the people with Mass facing East or facing the Lord. I don’t
say Mass “with my back to the people” anymore than Patton
went through Germany with his “back to the soldiers.” Patton
led the Third Army across Germany and they followed him to achieve a
goal. The Mass is part of the Pilgrim Church on the way to our goal,
our heavenly homeland. This world is not our heavenly homeland. We don’t
sit around in a circle and look at each other. We want to look with
each other and with the priest towards the rising sun, the rays of grace,
where the Son will come again in glory on the clouds.
And so, in Mass celebrated in the traditional way, the priest does
face the people when he speaks on God’s behalf to proclaim the
Word and explain it. And he does face the people when he receives their
gifts. And then he turns to face with the people and to offer those
gifts up to our common Father, praying that the Holy Spirit will come
down and transform those gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ. And
when that most sacred act takes place, the priest turns to offer the
gifts back to the people. I think that is much more dramatic. Whether
I am right or not, all I’m asking is a right to exist. If not
peaceful coexistence, at least coexistence.
Now strange as it may appear, there is absolutely no permission required
to say Mass facing East. The Pope does it every morning in his chapel.
But there is such a taboo against it that most pastors would be afraid
to do it for fear they would be exiled to some lowly parish.
The Council also said nothing about moving the Tabernacle. It said
nothing about removing altar rails. It said nothing about taking out
kneelers. It said nothing about turning the altar around. Nor did the
Council, as I mentioned, abolish Latin. It specifically mandated the
retention of Latin and only permitted the use of the vernacular in certain
circumstances. And, finally, the Council did not prohibit Gregorian
Chant, as you might be led to think from its absence in your parishes.
The Council actually prescribed Gregorian Chant to have pride of place.
Pope John Paul II Addresses the Bishops
Here’s what the Pope said to the bishops of the Northwestern United
States: “The two-thousandth anniversary of the birth of the Savior
is a call to all Christ’s followers to seek a genuine conversion
to God and a great advance to holiness. Since the Liturgy is such a
central part of the Christian life, I wish today to consider some aspects
of the liturgical renewal so vigorously promoted by the Second Vatican
Council, as the prime agent of the wider renewal of Catholic life.”
So, the Council itself wanted to renew Catholic life. And within that,
it wanted to renew the liturgy. The Pope is saying here that as we look
toward the year 2000, we must go back and see what the Council wanted
for liturgical renewal, because that is the prime agent of the wider
renewal of Catholic life.
He continues: “To look back over what has been done in the field
of liturgical renewal since the Council is first to see many reasons
for giving heartfelt thanks and praise to the Most Holy Trinity for
the marvelous awareness which had developed among the faithful of their
role and responsibility in the priestly work of Christ and his Church.
It is also to realize that not all changes have always and everywhere
been accompanied by the necessary explanation and catechesis. As a result,
in some cases there has been a misunderstanding of the very nature of
the Liturgy, leading to abuses, polarization, sometimes even grave scandal.”
The Pope generally speaks diplomatically, especially to bishops. These
are pretty hard words, and this is the introduction, so obviously he’s
going to give some guidelines for avoiding this polarization, this grave
scandal and these abuses. He says, “After the experience of more
than thirty years of liturgical renewal we are well placed to assess
both the strengths and weaknesses of what has been done . . .”
(listen carefully now)“ . . . in order more confidently to plot
our course into the future, which God has in mind for His cherished
people.” The Pope, here, speaks to our bishops, looking toward
the new millennium and says, in effect, Here is what I think is the
plan God has for all of his people as we move to the next millennium.
And, specifically, here is the liturgical blueprint that, I, the Holy
Father, believe we are to follow.
“The challenge now,” he continues, “is to move beyond
whatever misunderstandings there have been and to reach the proper point
of balance, especially by entering more deeply into the contemplative
dimension of worship, which includes a sense of awe, reverence and adoration
which are fundamental attitudes in our relationship with God.”
What does the Pope say we must do to restore balance? Enter more deeply
into the contemplative dimension of worship. Can you contemplate when
you’ve got drummers up in the sanctuary? Where do we find the
sense of awe? Not in this “chatty” stuff at Mass: “Good
morning, everybody.” Does that inspire a sense of awe? “Have
a nice day.” The Pope mentions reverence and adoration. Standing
is a sign of respect; but kneeling is a sign of adoration. The Pope
says we must restore the sense of adoration.
The Pope says to the liturgists and the bishops, “The Eucharist
gathers and builds the human community, but it is also ‘the worship
of the Divine Majesty’.” That’s from Sacrosanctum
Concilium, paragraph 33. He continues: “It is subjective in that
it depends radically upon what the worshippers bring to it, but it is
objective in that it transcends them as the priestly act of Christ himself
to which he associates us, but which ultimately does not depend upon
us.”
This is why it’s so important that liturgical law be respected:
an objective act is taking place. “The priest, who is the servant
of the liturgy and not its inventor or producer, has a particular responsibility
in this regard, lest he empty the liturgy of its true meaning or obscure
its sacred character,” says the Holy Father.
Then he talks about “The core of the mystery of Christian worship.”
Is the core of the mystery of Christian worship a sense that we are
the people of God? Is it feeling united with each other? Spiritual bonding?
Not according to the Pope, who says, “The core of the mystery
of Christian worship is the Sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father
and the work of the Risen Christ who sanctifies his people through the
liturgical sign.” The sacrifice of Christ, sanctification. That’s
what the Pope says. Remember, he’s looking now to lead the Church
in the new millennium liturgically. He continues: “It is, therefore,
essential that in seeking to enter more deeply into the contemplative
depths of worship, the inexhaustible mystery of the priesthood of Jesus
Christ be fully acknowledged and respected.”
Full, Conscious and Active Participation
The Holy Father next discusses three attributes of the liturgy: full,
conscious and active participation. Remember that I began by reading
paragraph 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which states that the purpose
of the Council in renewing the liturgy was to achieve full, conscious,
active participation? Well, those words can have different meanings.
It is very interesting to find out what the Pope thinks they mean, as
he tells us what he believes God is calling the Church to do in the
liturgy in the new millennium.
First, he talks about the fullness of participation. “The sharing
of all the baptized in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ is the key
to understanding the Church’s call for full, conscious and active
participation. Full participation certainly means that every member
of the community has a part to play in the liturgy. And in this respect,
a great deal has been achieved in parishes and communities across the
land. But, full participation does not mean that everyone does everything,
since this would lead to a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing
of the priesthood, and this was not what the Council had in mind.”
What does he mean by “clericalizing the laity”? It’s
the idea that, for example, the lector, the server at the altar, or
the cross-bearer participates more actively than the mother with her
child in the back of church. It’s the idea that being more like
the priest in the sanctuary somehow makes you participate more fully.
But the Pope says no to that idea. No, the “clericalizing of the
laity” and the “laicizing of the clergy,” whereby
the priest doesn’t do priestly things but sits while lay people
are distributing the Eucharist, are not what the Council had in mind,
says the Pope.
“The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical
and polyphonic,” he says. Not concentric and egalitarian, but
hierarchical and polyphonic: “Respecting the different roles assigned
by Christ and allowing all the different voices to blend in one great
hymn of praise.” I’m not saying there shouldn’t be
lectors and acolytes, and so on. There should be. But the point is,
it’s not how close you get to the altar that determines how fully
you participate. If that were the case, then those who aren’t
ministers of some sort at Mass would be second-class participants. That’s
not what the Council meant, says the Pope, by full participation.
Then the Pope comes to active participation. “Active participation
certainly means that in gesture, word, song, and service all the members
of the community take part in an active worship, which is anything but
inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active
passivity of silence, stillness, and listening: indeed, it demands it.
Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings
or the homily or following the prayers of the celebrant and the chants
in music of the Liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness,
but they are in their own way, profoundly active. In a culture that
neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening
is learned only with difficulty. Here we see the liturgy, though it
must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.”
Especially in our noisy world, we need to have silence. Especially
in our world where it is hard to pray, we need to have contemplative
adoration. In a world that doesn’t respect the liturgical cycles
and seasons, we need to celebrate the Feast of the Ascension on a Thursday,
not on a Sunday. Precisely because we have to be counter-cultural, we
need to say there’s something more important than the workday.
It’s our feast day.
Finally, the Holy Father discusses conscious participation. He says,
“Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be
properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy” — the
Council’s main instruction — “lest the experience
of worship degenerate into a form of ritualism. But it does not mean
a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to make the implicit explicit,
since this often leads to verbosity and informality which are alien
to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of worship.”
Conscious participation, then, is not a multiplication of commentators
telling us what’s happening as the Mass goes along; it’s
not laid back informality and the trivializing of the liturgy. That’s
why I think it may seem like a small thing, but it’s very bad
to begin a liturgy by saying, “Good morning, everyone.”
That’s not how you begin a sacred liturgy. You begin a sacred
liturgy, “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit,” or better yet, “In nomine Patris, et Filii,
et Spiritus Sancti.”
The Holy Father continues: “Nor does conscious participation
mean the suppression of all subconscious experience, which is vital
in a liturgy which thrives on symbols that speak to the subconscious,
just as they speak to the conscious. The use of the vernacular has certainly
opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part.”
There is, then, a positive value to the vernacular. “But,”
the Holy Father continues, “this does not mean that the Latin
language, and especially, the Chants which are so superbly adapted to
the genius of the Roman rite, should be wholly abandoned.”
What, then, does the Pope say about full, conscious, active participation?
That it should be hierarchical, that there should be quiet, and worship
in awe and reverence, and that there should be a place for Latin and,
certainly for Chant in the liturgy. I submit to you that in most parishes
across this country that’s not what you habitually find at the
ordinary Masses for the people. Thus, although the Pope doesn’t
say it in so many words, he is of the opinion that the way Mass is currently
celebrated doesn’t conform fully to the mandates of the Council,
as intended by the Church for the next century.
We have now two extremes and a moderate position. One extreme position
is the kind of informal Mass, all in English, facing the people, with
contemporary music, which does not at all correspond with what the Council
had in mind. But it is legitimate, it is permitted; it is not wrong.
And we have on the other extreme those who have returned, with permission,
to the Mass of 1962 and, as others have noted, it is thriving and growing.
But it is not what the Council itself specifically had in mind, although
it is the Mass of the ages.
Then you have the moderates. Those in the middle. Me and a few others.
But I am going to insist on my right as a Catholic and as priest to
celebrate the liturgy according to the Council, according to the presently
approved liturgical books, to celebrate a form of the Mass that therefore
needs no special permission — and which in fact cannot be prohibited
— what I’ve called “the Mass of Vatican II.”
Return to top
