Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 49

Having provided a succinct doctrinal foundation in arts. 47-48, art. 49 initiates the Council Fathers’ structural and practical reforms of the celebration of the Mass.

Vatican website translation:

For this reason the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with the 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 to the fullest degree.

Latin text:

49. Quapropter, ut Sacrificium Missae, etiam rituum forma, plenam pastoralem efficacitatem assequatur, Sacrosanctum Concilium, ratione habita Missarum, quae concurrente populo celebrantur, praesertim diebus dominicis et festis de praecepto, ea quae sequuntur decernit.

Slavishly literal translation [thanks to Jonathan Day]:

49. Therefore, in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the forms of its ritual, may achieve the fullest pastoral efficacy, this most Sacred Council, having in mind Masses that are celebrated with the people engaged [or ‘with the people present in large numbers’], especially on Sundays and feasts of precept, has decreed what follows.

It should be noted that the ultimate justification for the liturgical reforms proposed by the Council Fathers is that “the sacrifice of the Mass…may achieve the fullest pastoral efficacy.” In other words, the reforms are not intended as exercises in antiquarian recovery, as restless desires for novelty, as inculcations of particular theological or political agenda, or as experiments in aesthetic uplift. They are aimed at helping the worshiping assembly more powerfully engage what the Council Fathers earlier in Chapter One declared to be the purpose of the liturgy: the glorification of God and the sanctification of the faithful. The reforms envisioned are especially intended for Masses at which the faithful are bound to be present by ecclesiastical law, namely, on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation (although the reforms are not forbidden in other circumstances).  Pray Tell readers may wish to keep this overarching goal in mind as they evaluate particular reforms of the celebration of [Roman Rite] Eucharist over the last fifty years.

Jonathan Day calls our attention to the particular usage of “concurrente populo”: In the Vatican website translation it is rendered “with the assistance of the people,” but in English “assist” as applied to lay participation at Mass appears to be a false analogue with the French “assister,” meaning “be present at.” The Latin “concurro,” of course, literally means to “run together,” but it also means to “engage in battle”; the Latin “concurrentia” (and French “concurrence”) means “competition.” The implication is unquestionably of peers “running together.” It would not be inaccurate to render the phrase “with the people concelebrating.”

Michael Joncas

Ordained in 1980 as a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN, Fr. (Jan) Michael Joncas holds degrees in English from the (then) College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, and in liturgical studies from the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN and the Pontificio Istituto Liturgico of the Ateneo S. Anselmo in Rome. He has served as a parochial vicar, a campus minister, and a parochial administrator (pastor). He is the author of six books and more than two hundred fifty articles and reviews in journals such as Worship, Ecclesia Orans, and Questions Liturgiques. He has composed and arranged more than 300 pieces of liturgical music. He has recently retired as a faculty member in the Theology and Catholic Studies departments and as Artist in Residence and Research Fellow in Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

39 responses to “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 49”

  1. Peter Haydon

    Father, this seems to be a linking paragraph, perhaps repeating paragraph 21.
    The deficiency identified of the congregation being mere spectators (paragraph 48) is to be corrected with increased participation. This is to come from the right approach (paragraph 11), better knowledge and understanding for clergy (paragraphs 14 to 18) and congregation (paragraph 19), for the congregation to make responses (paragraphs 30 and 31). Each of these could be described as clergy and congregation having to try harder.
    Another approach is now to be presented: to make the rite easier by use of vernacular (paragraph 36#3) and what we will read in paragraph 50 and after.
    This seems to me to be a bit like a bargain: the rite is to be made easier and we are to try harder.
    If this understanding of a bargain holds water it may provide a means of testing the way things have developed. For example we considered diocesan commissions with paragraph 46 and training in seminaries with paragraph 16. I think the conclusion was that neither had really done as well as they might.

    Reply
  2. Jonathan Day

    SC distinguishes Masses celebrated with the people present from those without. The idea of ‘private Masses’ caused conflict and resulted in a canon at the Council of Trent, expressing a preference for the presence of the faithful but defending the practice of a priest celebrating and communicating alone.

    The Code of Rubrics promulgated by Pope John XXIII in 1960, notes that

    § 269. The most holy sacrifice of the Mass, celebrated according to the canons and rubrics, is an act of public worship, rendered to God in the name of Christ and of the Church. The expression ‘private Masses’ is therefore to be avoided.

    (Sacrosanctum Missae Sacrificium, iuxta canones et rubricas celebratum, est actus cultus publici, nomine Christi et Ecclesiae Deo redditi. Denominatio proinde «Missae privatae» vitetur.)

    Apparently this still applies to the 1962 Mass, although the term ‘private Masses’ is still around. The preferred term is Missa sine populo, “Mass without a congregation”.

    How to describe the people’s role in a Missa cum populo? How best to translate concurrente populo? I think that “with the people concelebrating” is not inaccurate, although it could lead to silliness such as the people surrounding the altar at the consecration or imitating the priest’s gestures.

    The Latin of the GIRM virtually always qualifies celebrans: it speaks of sacerdos celebrans (the priest who is celebrating), or celebrans principalis (the principal celebrant, where multiple priests concelebrate). This suggests that populi [con]celebrantes (“the concelebrating people”) is not an impossible idea.

    In §238 it draws a distinction: Libera nos dicitur a solo celebrante principali, manibus extensis. Omnes concelebrantes, una cum populo, acclamationem finalem proferunt: Quia tuum est regnum.: “The principal celebrant alone says ‘deliver us”, with his hands outstretched; all of the concelebrants, together with the people, say the final acclamation, ‘for yours is the kingdom…’”.

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      @Jonathan Day – comment #2:

      although it could lead to silliness such as the people surrounding the altar at the consecration or imitating the priest’s gestures.

      Jonathan, this is precisely what some of us encourage children to do, and it is far from silly.

      I am sure you have been at celebrations where the entire assembly surrounded the altar during the entire Eucharistic Prayer (it happens often in monastic practice, but also elsewhere). The sheer power of being drawn in closer to the liturgical action has been eloquently testified to by participants on many occasions. Obviously this is not possible with larger numbers but is easily done with 50 or so. It makes the circumadstantes of the Roman Canon something of a tangible reality, and yes, I believe it enables those “standing around” to feel that they are in some sense concelebrating, while not taking away from the primary ministry of the presiding priest. With children, too, it is a way of bringing them closer to the source of the mystery, and engaging their attention.

      As far as the priest’s gestures are concerned, yes, there too, some of us encourage children to imitate (American: ‘to model’) what the presider is doing. He adopts the orans position — so do they. (Of course, the majority of presiders do not use the true orans position, but that is the subject of another thread.) He extends his hands over the offerings — they extend their hands too. He makes the sign of the cross — so do they. This bodily participation is a great aid aid to engaging the young people more deeply and intensely in what is, after all, a somewhat lengthy presider’s monologue when the minds of the young (and, we should admit, the not-so-young) can easily be distracted and lose focus. Indeed, some have suggested that we should all be doing the same thing as a matter of course, and certainly there is no rubric that I am aware of forbidding such a practice. At an anthropological level, having the children watch the priest closely so that they do what he does is nothing other than beneficial. Couple that with the use of one of the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children, preferably one with a number of additional acclamations, and you have a recipe for success.

      Furthermore, it is my experience that when youngsters are engaged in the Eucharist in this way, standing round the altar and modeling the presider’s gestures, then the chances of them continuing to attend and be involved as teenagers are dramatically increased. If we want our young people not to drift away, we need to work hard with them at an earlier age to make sure that they are engaged as much as we can possibly manage.

      One last point. With the children, this accustoming them to bodily gestures is also going to help form a seed-bed of presiding priests of the future. If they become used to the normality of such gesturing at the altar at an early age, the chances are also increased that they will want to continue as adults. (I stand aside from commenting on the reality that there will be girls as well as boys around the altar on these occasions!)

      Reply
      1. Rita Ferrone Avatar
        Rita Ferrone

        @Paul Inwood – comment #3:
        Isn’t this interesting.

        I too am a big fan of circumstantes, so I was likewise surprised at Jonathan’s word “silly.” Especially in smaller assemblies, the opportunity to stand around the altar, close to the action, is profoundly affecting, beautiful to behold, and fully in keeping with the spirit of the liturgical act.

        We may disagree a little bit after that, however. I have never advocated the practice of having children (or adults for that matter) mimic the gestures of the presider. Children of a certain age tend to mimic naturally, and I’m not saying it’s a crime. But part of their formation in the liturgy is, or ought to be, to see, understand, and appreciate that each liturgical actor has a part and these are different: that diverse roles contribute to the whole. The priest speaks, we respond. At times it’s the congregation alone that does something, at other times the priest alone. We are in kinesthetic dialogue, so to speak. Postures and gestures of the assembly are important in themselves, not because they are mirrors of what the priest is doing.

        That said, I share the concern for more (appropriate) kinesthetic involvement of the assembly in the liturgy. Children especially do not naturally remain still for such long periods of time, and I’m sure it contributes to their feelings of boredom, restriction, and so forth. We do learn and worship through our bodies, and taking different postures and making gestures to enact symbolic meaning is human nature.

      2. Jeffrey Pinyan

        @Paul Inwood – comment #3:
        some of us encourage children to imitate (American: ‘to model’) what the presider is doing. … orans … extends his hands … sign of the cross

        And bows and genuflections too? (Not trying to be snotty, I’m actually quite curious.)

    2. Jordan Zarembo

      @Jonathan Day – comment #2:

      What is the Latin title of Bl. John XXIII’s Code of Rubrics? Could you link to the Latin? Thank you Jonathan.

      I have long interpreted MR 1962’s suppression of the public preparation for communion at low, sung, and solemn Masses (but not pontifical Masses) a practical application of the Code of Rubrics § 269. The preparation (servers/ministers recite the Confiteor once, after which the priest pronounces the Misereatur and Indulgentiam over the servers/ministers and by extension the laity) is, as many know, an integration of the rite of communion outside Mass into the Mass itself, as if the communion of the laity is fundamentally extrinsic to Mass. PCED has upheld the suppression (2007), but not a few priests insist on giving the absolution and blessing despite PCED’s ruling.

      The suppression of this preparation from 1962 — 1970 is quite telling, as a significant disjunct between the Mass as a private or public liturgy had been closed. After 1962, and in celebrations of the EF today, all Masses necessarily recognize at least notionally that the laity are intrinsic to the celebration of Mass. Therefore, no Mass is intrinsically private, even if at EF Mass without a congregation the priest does not turn to recite ecce Agnus Dei. The suppression of the preparation before Mass therefore, at least in theory, recognize that the communion of the faithful is intrinsic to all Masses.

      Without MR 1962’s suppression of a pre-communion confession, rubrics such as IMGR §238, and Omnes concelebrantes, una cum populo […] [my ellipsis] as you interpret the phrase, would in the least be significantly impeded both theoretically and practically.

      Reply
  3. Bill deHaas

    Thanks, Paul – the only way I did eucharist with both children and high school or college seminarians.

    Always wondered why teachers/administrators wondered why 6th,7th,8th graders *hated* school masses – school masses that did nothing to encourage participation beyond what they experienced at a week-end liturgy. And clerical/school staff never creatively thought about alternatives – rather, we had to attend school masses years ago; so, now they need to attend school masses (as if this magically imbues them with spiritual zeal).

    Reply
  4. Peter Haydon

    I think that some of the points above better relate to paragraphs 26 to 32.
    The reference to “having in mind” Mass with a congregation might imply that the decrees that follow might not apply to a private Mass. It does not explicity say so but this might be supported by the desire to avoid rigid uniformity (paragraph 37). The danger is that we try and read into the text our own preferences and aspirations.

    Reply
  5. Jonathan Day

    Jordan, you can find the link to the Latin text here:

    http://www.missaleromanum.it/Summorum/Summorum05.pdf

    Paul, Bill and Rita, I am happy to withdraw ‘silly’, especially where children are concerned. On Easter Sunday this year (I was in the USA) the priest invited the children to join him at the altar for the consecration. It was very beautiful, not silly at all.

    I also remember a conference of leaders, clergy and lay, from Jesuit-run parishes around the UK, where, at one of the Masses, the celebrating priest asked the entire assembly to join him for ‘through him and with him…’. Not in the rubrics, but it seemed right.

    What I was getting at was the idea that, if ‘concelebration’ were taken as the correct translation, people would feel that there was a requirement to stand around the altar, or to make the same gestures as the priest. I am with Rita in wanting each concelebrant (clerical or lay) to have an appropriate set of moves and gestures – just as dancers in a ballet do – and for roles not to be overly confused.

    So, let me withdraw ‘silly’.

    Reply
  6. Jordan Zarembo

    I respect both Bill’s and Rita’s preference for the assembly to surround the altar. One chapel at Fordham (at Lincoln Center) did not have chairs or pews facing the altar. The assembly had to stand around or before the altar in a semicircle or in a horizontal line. This arrangement, in itself, did not bother me because the configuration does not change the sacrament.

    The only reservation I had was the way in which communion was administered. The priest gave the paten to a communicant standing at one end of the semicircle, and then instructed the communicant to self-commune and then pass the paten to the next communicant. For someone who at that time and to this day receives on the tongue, I did not at all wish to administer holy communion to myself. When at this chapel and in a situation where self-communication was practiced, I would pass the paten without receiving communion. Similarly, I would pass the cup without partaking. Once or twice the celebrant walked up and down the line, administering communion individually to each communicant; this was a relief for me.

    I understand that my view of the Eucharist and the way I receive it might be considered anachronistic, overly pious, or even superstitious. Still, the clergy in countries which hold an indult for communion in the hand must guarantee that those who wish to receive on the tongue may always do so. This promise is not always assured when communicants stand before or around an altar, unless the celebrant and/or assisting ministers administer the communion separately to each communicant.

    Reply
    1. Bill deHaas

      @Jordan Zarembo – comment #9:
      Agree with your observation, Jordan….never did that – really do like to focus on the breaking, sharing and so self-communication minimizes, if not guts, the eucharistic action.

      Jordan – my first visits to European cathedrals struck by the fact that very few had *US style pews* – it was obvious that folks stood and some of the beautiful cathedrals now have sanctuaries with altar that extend in the midst of the body of the cathedral and you find folks standing on three sides – gathered around the altar/table of the Lord. Funny how you can read history and assume that cathedral worship was the same wasy as I grew up with in the US in the 1960s.

      Rita – the music/liturgy director for children often briefly taught the kids a gesture to use during the sung responses of the children’s eucharistic prayers. College seminarians usually did not mimic the presider’s gestures.

      Reply
  7. Karl Liam Saur

    In terms of standing around (and, where applicable, “modeling”): do the presiders who invite this do so in a way that clearly indicates children may choose *not* to do so? Because if they don’t, the proferred arguments in favor are subject to deep discounting.

    Reply
    1. Bill deHaas

      @Karl Liam Saur – comment #11:
      Well, that is a point, KLS, but it also works the other way – if they are never offered the chance; well, you get my point…..and thus, your point is subject to deep discounting.

      Reply
  8. Jonathan Day

    I think Karl makes a good point. In general, the presiders I have seen are gentle in their invitation: “Any child who would like to join me around the altar is welcome to do so…”

    Without this, a child could be put into a difficult position. The priest is inviting the child to join him at the altar; perhaps the parents are “reform-of-the-reform” types and see this as inappropriate. The child is caught between two adult authority figures.

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      @Jonathan Day – comment #13:
      BINGO! You are reading me loud and clear. (I would say presiders should add: “but you of course are free to stay where you are if you prefer”)

      Bill, if you’ve followed my concerns I am regularly concerned about ways clergy assert authority to make liturgical changes by essentially hijacking the congregation in some way. The desire to be free from the burdens of centralized decision-making must in prudence be balanced by a fiduciary sensibility that realizes the decisions should then be make in an informed and empowered way from the stakeholders below (this is a deeply fiduciary sensibility – the fiduciary doesn’t get a vote of his own). Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, I’ve witnessed far too much of the former without enough of the latter except in forms that allow too much rationalization (reliance on pastoral councils and liturgical commissions and staff, who are in no way to be considered good proxies for deep and broad consultation with the faithful at large). Human nature is to prefer the distant over the proximate controlling person; so, a pope in Rome rather than the pastor…..

      Reply
      1. Bill deHaas

        @Karl Liam Saur – comment #14:
        KLS – sorry, my comment and frame of reference were school masses; high school and college seminary. The school masses were typically one class, at most – so, small groups. These classes also usually prepared the liturgy while learning and being educated about choices, etc. High school/college – no parents at daily mass.

        So, sorry, but in some sense we are talking past each other.

        Again, if I was presiding at a parish community mass (and for whatever reason invited children forward), it would have been exactly the way you describe. At the same time, have found that small groups or by class provides a learning environment to address some of your concerns – e.g. parents who are reform of the reform, etc. And, at times, this has led to discussions with specific parents.

        Agree with your *fiduciary* definition – just wouldn’t phrase it that way. At the same time, let’s also acknowledge that, too often, the current or common school/parish liturgy conventions are never questioned; creativity even within the current rubrics is dismissed (“we don’t do it that way here”); or we do it the right way (as if there is only one way). And let’s be honest, it is often easier to get along rather than take responsibility to educate, broaden horizons, etc.

        At a college seminary level, your arguments resonates but from the other side. Can name seminaries that bishops, rectors, staffs have *forced* to add EF masses because that is what they personally want; or see as meeting a specific bishop’s liturgical style/bent, etc. And what happens if a seminarian refuses to attend?

        So, your caution is well taken but will continue to state that it works both ways and is unfortunate 50 years after SC.

  9. Paul Inwood

    With regard to KLS’s fears, children are only too ready to be invited to do something, and if they see other children moving to do it then they want to do the same. With respect, I think the chances of a R of the R set of parents being present at the sort of Mass I have described are pretty remote, so the conflict of authority figures that Jonathan mentions would mostly not be an issue. KLS puts it in the context of a presider/liturgical committee hijacking the rite. I think that we should view these things not as hijacking but as encouraging people to exploit the full potential of the rite. Too often we take a minimalist approach.

    In response to Jeffrey, yes, bowing too. Most presiders that I have seen in this situation do not genuflect precisely because many children (and in fact many adults) have problems doing this. The only gestures that the children obviously do not imitate (because they do not have altar breads and chalices) are the showing to the assembly at the end of each part of the institution narrative. Having said that, I have actually seen children raising their hands when the priest does so. It looks like a visual acclamation.

    Reply
  10. Jordan Zarembo

    I am convinced that one pitfall of permitting children or young adults to draw near or around the altar during Mass involves a temptation to act condescendingly to the participants. I cannot know why pastors, catechists, and liturgists desire this liturgical activity. I suspect that the reasons differ according to occasion. Despite this, as a teenager I knew implicitly that Masses with this practice not only often separated children from the rest of the congregation, but also induced some priests to “speak” to the participants “on their level” (an unnecessary innovation — Mass speaks for itself and needs no commentary from a celebrant or otherwise.)

    I must not draw a direct line between childhood catechesis and my decision during high school to become an ardent traditionalist. Even so, at EF low Mass both children and elders both stand, mute and in contemplation, before the sacred mysteries. This strange (yet ultimately destructive and antimoral) egalitarianism greatly appealed to me not only because I was given “breathing room” to gradually understand the Mass. This false egalitarianism appealed to me at that time as I perceived myself free of a patronizing celebrant’s tone and demeanor which at times suggested that I was unable to understand Mass in its unadulterated celebration.

    Persons entrusted with religious formation, as well as liturgists, must understand that not all children and young adults are at the same intellectual and developmental level. Not all will benefit from a highly didactic approach to Mass. Indeed, a few participants will be deeply alienated. Is “gather around the altar” still an effective catechetical method in this light?

    Reply
  11. Bill deHaas

    Interesting – was about to post and suggest that this line of thought appears to be connected to the SC article discussed two weeks ago – best summarized as how often do presiders preach about liturgy or incorporate liturgy (Vatican II) into their homilies. Yes, liturgy commentary to meet this SC article is not necessarily effective – some of the commenters did a good job of explaining how good presiders connected the actions/words of the liturgy in a homily that was not didactic and often connected Eucharistic prayers to that day’s scripture, etc. (Jordan – agree, have sat through too many presiders who patronized kids (esp. high school)…..would suggest it was because the presider had no idea how to *preside* with kids; they were afraid, uncomfortable, etc.)

    Jordan – you highlight educational differences in your last paragraph and yet you seem to support what Paul Inwood posted. One way of linking the earlier SC article and this one is by liturgy teams/presider understanding that a purely didactic approach and differing intellectual levels are challenges. By preparing, including, inviting kids into the liturgy – by inviting them to come forward – in my experience was one of the best ways to involve (intellectual differences minimized) kids and even more so high school/college. It physically connected the liturgy (Eucharistic words, actions, meanings) with the kids’ actions (a very good way to accomplish the earlier SC article). It is movement rather than a didactic approach – why define *gather around the altar* as a didactic catechetical method? Have you ever taught children (or even more challenging, high school students)? Just leaving kids in the pews and assuming that each will get something out of the liturgy – well, isn’t that a form of a didactic catechetical method; in its own way, isn’t that patronizing also?

    Didactic would be one of our pastor commenters who dropped the *bombshell* at the intro of the new missal and how he taught latin responses to his 1st/2nd graders during the liturgy – now, that is didactic and, in my opinion, not a very good catechetical method and ignores age differences; intellectual abilities; etc. to make a point.

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      @Bill deHaas – comment #19:

      Just leaving kids in the pews and assuming that each will get something out of the liturgy – well, isn’t that a form of a didactic catechetical method; in its own way, isn’t that patronizing also?

      I have long thought that eucharistic piety progresses from the primacy of intellectual and spiritual self-reflection and only then a secondary focus on movement and visual comprehension. Bill, you state that “It physically connected the liturgy (Eucharistic words, actions, meanings) with the kids’ actions (a very good way to accomplish the earlier SC article)”. What, then, is the use of semiotic or kinesthetic education if students cannot or are insufficiently able to articulate the dogma and doctrine of the Mass, or display a thin veneer of spiritual development? The latter points mustn’t be minimized or avoided.

      Spirituality “from the pew” instead of a place less than a meter from Father’s elevation fosters a studied but integrated faith free to wander beyond sensory conditioning. The perspective from the pew benefits all ages.

      Reply
      1. Jim McKay

        @Jordan Zarembo – comment #29:

        If you propose this, isn’t it subject to KLS’ earlier comment: “do the presiders who invite this do so in a way that clearly indicates children may choose *not* to do so?”

        If you ask children to remain in the pew, should it be done in a way that indicates they may choose not to? That really does not make much sense to me, but I can’t follow how “pastoraly efficacious” implies sensory disengagement or willful individual separation either. I appreciate your efforts to amplify on it, but I don’t get it.

      2. Paul Inwood

        @Jordan Zarembo – comment #29:

        I have long thought that eucharistic piety progresses from the primacy of intellectual and spiritual self-reflection and only then a secondary focus on movement and visual comprehension.

        Which brings us to another important point. Does spiritual growth result from contemplating the mystery, as Jordan seems to be saying, or to actually celebrating the rite? The late-lamented liturgist Aidan Kavanagh used to say “Liturgy ain’t liturgy unless it’s done.” Perhaps it is also, then, possible to say that the primary source of grace is from the doing of the liturgy, rather than from merely contemplating it.

      3. Paul Inwood

        @Jordan Zarembo – comment #29:

        less than a meter from Father’s elevation

        I trust you’re not referring to the institution narrative. The only elevation in the Eucharistic Prayer is at the end of it, at the Great Doxology and Amen. After each part of the institution narrative, the priest shows the consecrated bread or chalice to the people. With Mass versus populum there is no need for a further elevation in any case. The height that the priest is holding the elements above the altar while pronouncing the words of the institution narrative is normally sufficient in most churches for everyone to see. Even in the EF there was no elevation prescribed after the consecration; once again the verb is “show”.:

  12. Jack Wayne

    Teaching kids the Latin responses at a young age seems ideal since they are more adept at that sort of thing than older kids and adults are. You could probably teach them to sing the whole Mass ordinary *and* get them to understand what it means.

    Reply
  13. Jack Feehily

    Why in the world would we want to teach children Latin responses or prayers. That battle has been over for more than 40 years except for the tiny but fervent advocates of the TLM. Having said that, we sing Greek and Latin parts of the Mass during Lent (along with a little Spanish and Vietnamese), and I have noticed children doing their best to emulate the sounds as they sing along with parents. No need for any kind of formal teaching in my estimation. We are using these forms to be faithful to SC.

    Reply
    1. Jack Wayne

      @Jack Feehily – comment #21:
      Because it is our rite’s liturgical language, ideal for celebrating in multilingual settings, and even Vatican II affirms the importance of it. The wrong side won the battle, and advocating Latin isn’t necessarily tied to the EF.

      The Latin of the ordinary is quite easy, and children should be taught how so they aren’t just badly imitating what they think they hear without understanding it.

      Reply
    2. Matthew Hazell

      @Jack Feehily (#21):

      Why in the world would we want to teach children Latin responses or prayers

      Erm… perhaps because (among other reasons) the Second Vatican Council asked that that be done? “[S]teps 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.” (SC 54)

      Of course, your question could be turned round: why would you want to deprive children (and older faithful) of their heritage and inheritance?

      Reply
  14. Paul Inwood

    I apologize for diverting this thread by introducing the question of celebrating well with children, but I do think it has led us to an important point, and that is the problem area of treating the liturgy as a catechetical or didactic tool rather than treating it as a celebration. All my remarks have been concerned with deepening the celebration, and not at all with didacticism, but I sense that there remains some confusion about this in the minds of some contributing to this thread.

    The liturgy is not a teaching tool. We come to celebrate what we already know, what we already have within us. And before anyone jumps on me, of course we do learn from celebrating the liturgy and it does teach us, but that is an incidental side-effect of its main purpose. Those who try to use it as a means of catechesis are subverting that purpose: the ritual is there to be celebrated. Not an endurance test. Not play-acting or going through the motions. Most importantly not a vehicle for the conveying of doctrinal, scriptural, linguistic or any other kind of ecclesial information. Celebration is what we are about, or should be about, and through that celebration promoting spiritual growth, not promoting intellectual advancement. Furthermore, promoting spiritual growth in communion with each other, as a celebrating body, not as a collection of individuals selfishly intent on saving their own souls.

    Reply
  15. Ann Olivier

    About standing at Mass in the medieval cathedrals of Europe. In those days people didn’t live very long. What was the average life-span — about 40 years for men and less for women? Well, young people can stand for long periods, but we old ones can’t. We need pews. My arthritis is so bad now I have to sit through most of the Mass.

    While I’m at it, forgive me for making a request of you liturgists on this particular thread, but, you are talking about gestures generally. My problem is this. We old folks with painfully arthritic hands need some sort of gesture to communicate to the people around us who want to shake hands that we really, really need not to. (One Sunday a demure looking lady with the hands of a stevedore crushed my hand so badly that I actually yelped in reaction. We were both extremely embarrassed.) My current solution is to fold my arms tightly with hands hidden, smile and shake my head No. They seem to get the message but only after they’ve extended their hands. Please, guys, think of some better way to avoid the pain and embarassment. Don’t tell me to just offer my finger tips — that message doesn’t work. Thanks.

    Now back to SC.

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      @Ann Olivier – comment #24:
      You remind me that the pastor in my parish has recently turned hand-holding at the Lord’s Prayer into an imperative, especially to cross aisles (I thought folks had finally gotten past that approach, and left it entirely to mutual inclination from below) – obviously without thinking through that: a classic situation of a noble intention subverted by unthoughtfulness. (I am not a touch-hater – no, I am something of a touch-lover – BUT, extending my arms in my odd proportions compared to the next person puts me in a state of extended discomfort where I can no longer PRAY; here, the gesture defeats the substance, something that a quasi-improvised gesture* of this sort should NOT do.)

      Sigh.

      * With fully ritualized gestures that have generations of law, custom and habit behind them, people are aware that because of their uniformity, there will in fact be people who are not able to do them as easily due to physical reasons, and so their non-performance is not necessarily interpreted as commentary. With other types of gestures, non-performance is more frequently interpreted as a form of commentary; which is something of a red flag that it’s an innovation that’s not properly received.

      Reply
    2. Paul Inwood

      @Ann Olivier – comment #24:

      Ann, what you need is the namaste gesture of greeting, commonly found in India and the east. Both hands placed together under the chin, vertically with fingertips upwards, often accompanied by a little bow.

      Reply
      1. Richard King

        @Paul Inwood – comment #27:
        Paul
        I do like the idea of the Namaste – I know it as the Wai – that could be used instead of the handshake, with which some people are uncomfortable.
        In our parish the choir exchange a very rapid handshake with those nearest, vaguely wave to everyone else, whilst scrambling to find the music for whichever Lamb of God we are singing. We could use the Namaste.
        It might take a while to catch on, though.

  16. Ann Olivier

    In the first centuries of Christianity was Communion administered on the tongue? When did the practice emerge and why? Surely, Jesus must have handed the Bread to the disciples.

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      @Ann Olivier – comment #26:

      A very brief and necessarily broad-brush-stroked overview:
      (1) For the first nine centuries, roughly speaking, Communion was received in the hand and from the chalice, by everyone, lay and ordained.
      (2) The opinions of certain gentlemen began to prevail, that lay people were not worthy to touch the sacred elements or vessels. Communion on the tongue began and Communion from the chalice was stopped for the laity.
      (3) However, in order to continue to receive under the form of wine, intinction (dipping by the minister) was introduced. A wine-dipped host piece of bread was placed on the tongue. Many struggled against this. The only person, they said, who dipped was Judas Iscariot, and we don’t want to be like him.
      (4) As a result, intinction died out, leaving
      (5) from roughly the 11th century onwards, Communion on the tongue only, and no Communion under the form of wine at all for lay people (apart from a few exceptions).
      (6) This state of affairs continued until Pope Paul VI decided to move towards returning to the original practice of the Church (1960s-1970s).
      (7) Communion in the hand has now replaced Communion on the tongue as the most common form in many countries. Communion from the chalice was reintroduced and is now the norm in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, Australia and some other European countries. The choice of which way to receive is normally up to the communicant, not the minister. Many stopped receiving from the chalice in the wake of the AIDS scare (it has since then been proved that you cannot catch AIDS from the chalice, but many have never been told this, alas), and intinction made a small comeback, unfortunately often accompanied by protestations that it is somehow “more reverent” than receiving in the hand and from the chalice. In some countries intinction is actually a breach of liturgical law; in others it is discouraged but not banned; and in yet others it is permitted.

      Reply
      1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        @Paul Inwood – comment #28:
        Paul, are you sure about #3? I was not aware that intinction was ever a practice in the West, until after the Council.

      2. Paul Inwood

        @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #35:

        Fritz, I am on the road and cannot check, but I think Nathan Mitchell’s magisterial book “Cult and Controversy” gives ample documentation on this and related topics concerning Communion as well as worship of the Eucharist outside Mass.

        Intinction lasted for rather less than 200 years before falling out of use. At that point, the doctrine of concomitance had to be invented in order to explain to the faithful that Communion under one kind alone was OK.

        Before the Council, in addition to intinction, other permitted methods of receiving Communion under the form of wine were the silver spoon (like the Orthodox) and the silver straw (fistula). The last of these has disappeared from the liturgical books, but the others survive.

  17. Ann Olivier

    Paul Inwood =

    Thank you for the namaste suggestion. I’m sure it would do fine as an alternative to shaking hands at any time shaking hands wasn’t inappropriate– for instance, when there is a bad flu running around the city and nobody wants to shake hands. But people would need to be taught that this is what the gesture means.

    And thanks very much for the history of how Communion was distributed. I’m sure there are lots of lessons there, the main one being, I think, that Jesus probably distributed it in the hands.

    Reply
  18. Karl Liam Saur

    Fritz

    My impression is that arguments (from both ends) about 1st millennium communion practices are longer on arguments from silence than from ample data, as it were.

    Reply
  19. Conor Cook

    I am personally uncomfortable with the ‘concelebration’ translation, especially since it is not a parallel translation (it combines ‘concurrente’ and ‘celebrantur’). Since I am not a priest, I cannot, as a lay member of the Church and thus not acting in persona Christi, consecrate the Eucharist. Google Translate offers “with the cooperation of the people,” and I like that better.

    Reply

Posted

in

, ,

by

Michael Joncas

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading