Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 1

The response to my suggestion was most positive, and so we begin re-reading Sacrosanctum Concilium, one article at a time.

*          *          *          *          *

Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 1

Sacrosanctum Concilium, cum sibi proponat vitam christianam inter fideles in dies augere; eas institutiones quae mutationibus obnoxiae sunt, ad nostrae aetatis necessitates melius accommodare; quidquid ad unionem omnium in Christum credentium conferre potest, fovere; et quidquid ad omnes in sinum Ecclesiae vocandos conducit, roborare; suum esse arbitratur peculiari ratione etiam instaurandam atque fovendam Liturgiam curare.

This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times 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 the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

As part of the first four prefatory articles of the Constitution, SC 1 deals with two topics.  Fundamentally (and this is clearer in the Latin than in the English) the Council declares that it judges that there is a particular rationale to undertake restoring/renewing (instaurandam) and cherishing/fostering (fovendam) the Liturgy.  The article then specifies that rationale in four ways, two of which concern “internal” ecclesial issues (ad intra) – 1) fostering what will increase Christian life among the faithful from day to day; and 2) to accommodate those institutions whose changes have become hurtful to the necessities of our age – and two of which concern “external” ecclesial issues (ad extra) – 3) to foster whatever could lead to a union of all believers in Christ; and 4) to strengthen what could lead to calling all into the heart of the Church.

I believe the Council Fathers wished to communicate two fundamental things in this article.  The ad intra and ad extra ecclesial issues serve as the initial agenda for the work of the Council.  These goals are profoundly church-oriented; they do not arise from a desire to define new dogma or combat particular heresies.  Rather they seek to renew the Church’s life at a particular time in its history and to (re-)focus its mission in ecumenical and evangelical ways.  Secondly, the Council Fathers undertook liturgical reform and renewal as a manifestation of their desire for church reform and renewal.

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

80 responses to “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 1”

  1. Jonathan Day

    eas institutiones quae mutationibus obnoxiae sunt is here rendered, “those institutions which are subject to change”.

    But obnoxius mutationibus surely means more than “subject to change”, as in “This is a draft schedule of lectures for Michaelmas term, but it is subject to change.”

    As the entry in Lewis and Short suggests, obnoxius does not mean “obnoxious” as we use the term in English, but it seems to have generally negative connotations.

    Would not “institutions that, because of changes, now require reform” be a more accurate (if clumsier) translation?

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      @Jonathan Day – comment #1:

      The evolution of the Latin language is important to keep in mind when reading ecclesiastical documents.

      obnoxius might have been softened as Latin evolved from the classical period to the medieval period. It’s true that in classical Latin obnoxius has a connotation of guilt. Over time, the severity of meaning might have mellowed to a more neutral meaning. The example I usually give for this phenomenon is iste. Tertullian, for example, often uses iste instead of hic or ille. In fact, the three pronouns are sometimes used indiscriminately in late/medieval Latin. iste in classical Latin often takes on a negative, accusatory tone; this meaning is largely absent in late Latin onwards.

      Reply
  2. Fritz Bauerschmidt

    I notice that the four goals of the Council seem to form concentric circles: the individual member of the Church, the Catholic Church as an institution, all Christians, all humanity.

    Reply
  3. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    It would be foolish to argue with what is described in this first foray in terms of the ad intra and ad extra ecclesial issues highlighted by Fr. Joncas. I suspect at the time the documents were written, the way the Church was in the USA compared to Church in Europe or other parts of the world was very different. I suspect that the USA, as today, even then had a higher rate of religious practice than some other places. So to get the high percentage of Catholics at that time to be more active in the Mass and more active as Catholics in their parishes and in their everyday lives was certainly well advised. In terms of Christian unity, certainly fostering it has been a blessing and much development has occurred in unexpected ways, especially for those of us who as Catholics are minorities in our cities and towns and thus even apart from institutional concerns, have to be ecumenical at home, work and play if we are going to be a part of our towns and cities. About 90% of our marriages are ecumenical in my Savannah Diocese. Up until the early 1950’s Catholics who married Protestants in my parish, many still alive and in the parish today, had to marry in the rectory, they weren’t allowed a church wedding. That was liberalized in the 1950’s when mixed marriages were allowed in the church but the ceremony had to take place outside the altar railing. Could you imagine going back to that today and Catholics acquiescing?
    Could anyone have imagined that the reformed liturgy would open the way to an “Anglican Use” (and subsequently the Ordinariate) liturgy during the Council–which I would see as positive. On the negative side, would Council Fathers in the USA imagined that the up to 90% attendance of Catholics at the “non-participative” Latin Mass of that period, would lead to only 20% of Catholic participating in the “active-participative” vernacular, simplified Mass today? If they had a crystal ball back then, what would they have written differently?

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #4:
      “On the negative side, would Council Fathers in the USA imagined (that) only 20% of Catholic participating in the “active-participative” vernacular, simplified Mass today?”

      Likely not. The council documents were filled with optimism, an attitude one doesn’t see turning sour until 1970 with Liturgicae Instaurationes.

      “If they had a crystal ball back then, what would they have written differently?”

      This presumes the problem was more with stating the situation and proposing reforms, which is what this document gives the Church. I would suggest that the disconnect began in 1968, and continued with poor and/or timid implementation.

      The connection between liturgy and the orbits of evangelism and ecumenism seems obvious to many of us, but still is not grasped by many parish clergy or lay people. That the Scriptures and homily will direct people to search and find commonalities with other Christians–well, we’ve lost something of that in the implementation of the past three decades.

      Let’s also note that in the bigger picture of reform, liturgy was the big start. In those “concentric circles” that our task is to engage reform from the inside (individuals and institution) out, rather than the modern methodology as described by the reform2 movement, from the out, in–the so-called mutual enrichment model. SC 1 strikes me as the start of a wisely spiritual exercise, that metanoia begins within, and before we can hope to be more effective in the world in the realms of evangelization and ecumenism, we should look to our own “stuff” and get these affairs in order before proceeding further.

      The council bishops had a quiet confidence about that, even so. They knew this was a start of something grace-filled, and not the end product of a working list supplied by the pope or curia.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #7:
        Todd says…” The council documents were filled with optimism, an attitude one doesn’t see turning sour until 1970 with Liturgicae Instaurationes.”
        I suggest that the optimism of Pope John XXIII that evidently was contagious during his reign (and even in the secular/scientific/political spheres) was inspired by the pre-Vatican II Church’s triumphalism. By 1970, post Vatican II reality checks were setting in and what many had thought would bring about the strengthening of Catholic identity and zeal by implementing the vision of Pope John XXIII quickly turned either realistic or just plain sour and based upon what was happening in the Church and the world and even in the secular/scientific/political spheres, i.e. people weren’t getting along, science could destroy the world and wars and anti-institutionalism created havoc and anarchy in many places, including the Church.
        The laity in the 1950’s and up to the Council knew very little if anything of what was going on in theological circles and in the hierarchy except when things were sent to them to implement, like the reduced fast, revisions of the Holy Week Liturgies, the dialogue Mass, etc. For the most part the laity were content with the status quo and this is certainly proven by the fact that almost 90% of Catholics at least in this country were attending Mass, having children, using Catholic institutions and providing vocations.
        Perhaps the clericalism of the academics in the church, i.e. theologians and bishops, who had been opining and dialoguing about reforms, renewal, etc. looked upon the faithful laity as the unwashed masses that they could cajole into their way of thinking and acting and do so by keeping the 90% in the Church and forming them in the new ways. I don’t think they counted on only 20% of those Catholics as actually staying and enjoying the ride, but of that 20% we know that about 100% are not happy with this, that or the other regardless of which polarized position they prefer.
        But with that said, revisiting the documents of Vatican II, especially SC, but now with 20/20 hindsight and not with the triumphalism of either Pope John XXIII or the bishops gathered with him in terms of what they had hoped would be the outcome is very wise. Are we more unified, less polarized, more obedient to the faith and morals of the Church and willing to bring these to the public square unapologetic and does the Liturgy of the Church enable that?
        Divisions about what the liturgy should be are at the heart of division over what the Church should be, outcomes that Vatican II did not envision.

      2. Todd Flowerday

        @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #37:
        On the other hand, 1968 could be considered a key year. We know it soured Professor Ratzinger. The non-receptivity of Humanae Vitae can’t be ignored. The institution put its foot down and a lot of otherwise good Catholics walked.

        It would be my contention that Catholics and others alike were always prepared to engage the Church when the public face was either one of optimism–like John Paul II’s travels or a more engaging liturgy, or of courageous witness in the face of obstacles–Mother Teresa or even the Central American martyrs of the 80’s. There was a reason that Catholicism was able to inspire a wider swatch of people. and if the mindset wasn’t intentionally evangelical on some fronts, it still functioned as such because the Catholic witness in some quarters was so strong.

        I also think revisiting the documents of Vatican II is wise. But it means that in areas where either the implementation or vision was weak, it might be time to push for deeper meanings or a reform more in keeping with the pattern of the Gospel.

        Is it possible, do you think, in a politically-charged environment, to engage in authentic metanoia, when such a basically Christian action might have political implications within the institution? And if not, has a pet ideology of any sort begun to trump a basic Christian response to the Gospel?

        It’s interesting to suggest that liturgical reform went too far, and that some kind of happy medium, 1965 say, will restore those who abandoned the faith after WWII. I hear a good bit of this, but I confess I don’t see the metric at work on this one.

      3. Father Allan J. McDonald

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #38:
        While some might prefer 1965’s liturgy I think the biggest problem isn’t the reformed Mass but the breach in style, choreography and spirituality of how it is celebrated and this contributing to a loss of Catholic sensibilities in liturgical piety, unity and solemnity. But in no way would I oppose the reformed liturgy celebrated extraordinarily in the vernacular with actual participation by all.

      4. Joseph Ross

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #7:
        Re the “optimism” of the cociliar years, a recent item on NPR noted that most of the “top forty” pop hits of the sixties were in a major key and with a peppy pace. In recent years, more minor key music makes the charts.The sixties were in some ways a very optimistic time.

  4. Peter Haydon

    The Catholic Truth Society translation by Dom Gregory Bainbridge has: “to adapt in the best way possible to the needs of our time those institutions that admit of change” which presumably implies that some institutions were not to be changed.
    The last sentence was “For the better achievement of these aims, it considers that it should give particular attention to the restoration and encouragement of the Liturgy.” This then is explained in the next paragraph.
    Note only that the reason here given does not follow from the previous text so the word “therefore” is not used.
    If we find each paragraph capable of different interpretations this could be hard work but, with luck, we will benefit from it.

    Reply
  5. Fr. Jan Michael Joncas

    With reference to comments ##1 and 5: I have chosen to use the translation coming from the Vatican website, but in my commentary I tried to give a sense of at least one alternative translation formulation.
    Remembering the three categories that I tried to suggest for engaging SC’s text, it might be helpful if some of our readers could undertake the historical work of determining how (and why?) this article was formulated (perhaps with reference to the various versions through which it went). Fr. McDonald has offered a fine contribution on the “reception” of this article; I look forward to more perspectives. It would also be of interest to see what agenda items we might articulate were the Council to be held today (i.e., the fruit of the trajectories begun in this document). Another way of thinking of this third category might be: if Vatican II dealt with the Church in the Modern World, how would another council deal with the Church in the Post-Modern World?

    Reply
    1. Peter Haydon

      @Fr. Jan Michael Joncas – comment #6:
      Sorry Fr if you found my point unhelpful. I think that Fritz above got most of the meaning. I do not see how the objectives as stated give the conclusion that reform of the liturgy was needed.
      In Clifford Longley’s “The Worlock Archive” the diary suggests that the decision to call the council was not carefully considered and that the bishops were asked to identify their concerns and so make their agenda. This is what, in outline, the first bit seems to say here before going on to say that they will start with the liturgy. Presumably condemning a heresy or starting a crusade is easier to describe and makes a council easier to manage.
      As for what was to change, raised in the first two comments, the CTS translation seems more elegant.

      Reply
  6. Rita Ferrone

    It’s worth observing that the preface or preamble to CSL is unlike the beginning of any other Vatican II document. It sets forth the goals of the Council, and thus serves not only as an introduction to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, but to the entire work of the Council.

    I understand that Massimo Faggioli’s most recent book (from Liturgical Press) takes up the subject of the Liturgy constitution as the interpretive key to the whole of Vatican II, and I look forward to reading his argument.

    Reply
    1. Jim Pauwels

      Rita Ferrone : I understand that Massimo Faggioli’s most recent book (from Liturgical Press) takes up the subject of the Liturgy constitution as the interpretive key to the whole of Vatican II, and I look forward to reading his argument.

      Happily, there appears to be a click-through advertisement for the book at the Pray Tell landing page, so it may be *really* easy for us to order 🙂

      Reply
  7. Rita Ferrone

    As I observed in my book about SC, the four aims of the council enunciated in the preamble echo the goals of Pope John XXIII, stated as early as 1959: “… the enlightenment, edification, and joy of the entire Christian people” and “a renewed, cordial invitation to the faithful of the separated churches to participate with us in this feast of grace and brotherhood, for which so many souls long in all parts of the world.”

    Reply
  8. Jack Rakosky

    Fundamentally (and this is clearer in the Latin than in the English) the Council declares that it judges that there is a particular rationale to

    undertake restoring/renewing (instaurandam) and cherishing/fostering (fovendam) the Liturgy.

    It seems to me that the purpose is more clearly defined by the language of restoring, renewing, cherishing, and fostering the Liturgy than by the word “reform” or its modern version “reform of the reform.” The word “reform” seems to invite some people to trash the pre-Vatican II liturgy and the “reform of the reform” tends to invite other people to trash the post-Vatican II liturgy. Trashing seems to be a very perverse way of restoring, renewing, cherishing and fostering.

    “Reform” invite us to a static vision of the restoring, renewing, cherishing and fostering of the Liturgy, as if it was all done at the time of the Council and we need only do what the Council asked, or that we need to undertake a “Reform of the Reform” to undo what has taken place, again in a once and for all fashion.

    Restoring, renewing, cherishing and fostering is better thought of as an ongoing and continuous process that should be sensitive to the same internal and external rationale that motivated the Council, namely

    it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times 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 the whole of mankind into the household of the Church.

    The vision of change provided in the opening of this document is a very positive, constructive and continuous vision. It is also a very perennial vision, one that can continue to guide us for a long period of time.

    Reply
  9. Fr. Jan Michael Joncas

    Actually, I didn’t find Mr. Haydon’s comment at #5 unhelpful. It reminds us that the Latin original is patient of many nuances. How about this for a slavishly literal translation of article 1: “This Sacred Council, when it proposes to itself (1) to increase the Christian life among the faithful from day to day; (2) to adapt those institutions which have become hurtful to the necessities of our age; (3) to foster whatever could lead to the union of all believers in(to) Christ; and (4) to strengthen whatever leads to calling all into the heart of the Church, judges there to be a particular rationale to undertake restoring/renewing and fostering/cherishing the Liturgy.”
    It may be improper of me to ask this, but perhaps Jordan Zarembo, whose command of Latin has impressed me through his contributions to this blog, would be willing in the future to provide us with similar slavishly literal translations of the Latin text, while I provide the translation from the Latin website and others provide other translations as they see fit.
    Already I recognize an enrichment from our discussion: four goals articulated for the Council which might be understood as grouped into two ad intra and two ad extra or in four expanding circles. I think it will be important to recognize that the Council Fathers apparently saw a connection between these goals and the restoration/renewal and cherishing/fostering of the Liturgy.

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      @Fr. Jan Michael Joncas – comment #12:

      It may be improper of me to ask this, but perhaps Jordan Zarembo, whose command of Latin has impressed me through his contributions to this blog, would be willing in the future to provide us with similar slavishly literal translations of the Latin text, while I provide the translation from the Latin website and others provide other translations as they see fit.

      Thank you very much Father for the compliment. I’d be happy to jump in here and there and give a more literal translation of a phrase or sentence and an argument for that translation. However, working with English translations and the Latin side-by-side, rather than creating a whole cloth new translation, is often helpful. This is especially true since most Catholics encounter the conciliar documents in the vernacular. In some ways it’s better to “amplify” translations with critiques and observations based in the Latin text. Also, I’d encourage those who are proficient in other languages to compare translations of the conciliar documents into languages other than English against English translations and the Latin. It’s not uncommon, for example, for different vernacular translations of the reformed Mass to interpret certain parts “better” than the English translations. I only include scare quotes since “better” is often a very contentious point!

      Reply
  10. Jim McKay

    the Council Fathers undertook liturgical reform and renewal as a manifestation of their desire for church reform and renewal.

    This seems like a weak summary. *the Council Fathers undertook liturgical reform and renewal as *in order to* reform and renew the Church* seems closer to their intent, particularly in light of Peter’s “therefore.” ISTM that this is a powerful statement of faith, that the liturgy CAN impart increasing vigor to Christians, draw us closer together and draw others to us.

    And that the liturgy should be used that way. It is not a pietistic retreat from the world toward God, but an active engagement of people in a way that can change them. The next paragraph draws some of that out, but this one already establishes liturgy as having a human purpose.

    Reply
  11. J. Peter Nixon

    As others have noted, this is a very rich passage. I see it as the fruit of a number of historical trends that both led to and influenced the Council. Let me just highlight two.

    First of all, there is the influence of the 20th century liturgical movement. The phrase “impart an ever increasing vigor to Christian life” recalls Pius X’s suggestion in his 1903 motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini that “active participation” in the liturgy could restore the “true Christian spirit” among the faithful. Pius, of course, saw this spirit threatened by the forces of liberalism, socialism and secularism, but even reformers working at the grass roots like Lambert Beauduin and Virgil Michel were skeptical of the economic liberalism that was disrupting settled communities and expanding the ranks of the working class (Beauduin had been active in priestly ministry to workers before entering monastic life). As the “corporate” act of the “mystical body of Christ” (this theology had enormous influence on the liturgical movement) the liturgy could be a counter-sign to individualism and an experience of authentic communion.

    Second, there is the influence of the ecumenical movement, which is enormously important for understanding the Council. As was noted by others here, Pope John XXIII had cited the reunion of Christians as a motivation for calling the Council. Those active in the liturgical movement were often pioneers in ecumenical dialogue, since both Catholic and Protestant denominations were engaged in a return to the early liturgical sources as a basis for reform. Since different understandings of liturgical theology (e.g. “meal” versus “sacrifice”) had become church dividing issues, it was believed that the resolution of those issues could move Christians closer to reunion.

    Reply
    1. Peter Rehwaldt

      @Rita Ferrone – comment #9:
      @Rita Ferrone – comment #10:
      @J. Peter Nixon – comment #14:

      Rita’s observation that CSL “sets forth the goals of the Council, and thus serves not only as an introduction to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, but to the entire work of the Council”, combined with the concern of the council for ecumenism are worth pondering.

      As one of the “faithful of the separated churches,” I can’t help but note that by beginning with consideration of the liturgy, the Council was implicitly moving toward the Lutheran Reformers. In article VII of the Augsburg Confession, the reformers wrote:

      It is also taught that at all times there must be and remain one holy, Christian church. It is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel.

      For this is enough for the true unity of the Christian church that there the gospel is preached harmoniously according to a pure understanding and the sacraments are administered in conformity with the divine Word. . . .

      I hesitate to push this too far, but it seems that both the Lutherans of 1530 and the Roman Catholics of 1963 appear to be on somewhat the same page, in highlighting the centrality of liturgy as that which makes the church the church.

      Reply
  12. Bill deHaas

    If I may build on Fr. Joncas’ request – “…..it might be helpful if some of our readers could undertake the historical work of determining how (and why?) this article was formulated (perhaps with reference to the various versions through which it went).

    Wonder if we can recapture the ecumenical drive and feeling of the times – that the most glaring scandal was the divisions among Christians and that this council would seek to unify, not separate.

    Historical background – Sept. 11, 1962 – link to John XXIII’s http://conciliaria.com/2012/09/popes-address-to-world-month-before-council-opens/#more-1954 (funny how 9/11 seems to crop up in history)

    Historical highlights:
    – “We are living in the midst of a new political world. One of the fundamental rights which the Church can never renounce is that of religious liberty, which is not merely freedom of worship.”
    – “The ecumenical council is about to assemble 17 years after the end of the Second World War. For the first time in history, the Fathers of the council belong, in reality, to all peoples and nations” (need to keep in mind that most participants lived through the world war and this is a *context* – it also borrows from the UN Charter and aims of WWII – e.g. right to self-government of peoples v. colonization
    – “O the beauty of the petition in the liturgy: “Deign to grant peace and unity to a united Christian people. O the overflowing joy of the heart on reading the 17th chapter of St. John: “That all may be one” Unum: one in thought, in word and in work.”

    In reading Congar’s council notes; Rahner’s reflections, and Bugnini’s Reform of the Liturgy, you find a pattern dating back to WWII of liturgical reform efforts that tried to lay the groundwork for a liturgy that involved the people of God – these efforts were based upon new liturgical studies, biblical advances, and impact on theology esp. sacramental theology. Thus, you see efforts such as worker priests, christian unity talks, requests for vernacular, small communities’ celebrations.

    Thus, you can see from these perspectives that SC was actually not the start of reform but, rather, expressed the reform that had been going on. This is the *context* that Fr. Ruff laid out initially.

    Best iterated by this German archbishop’s complaints: http://www.tomrichstatter.org/dDocuments/d26twent.htm#Fears in 1942

    Note some of his threats:
    – sees dogma as threatened by liturgical reform (this touches upon the current meme that VII was not a dogmatic council but pastoral – meaning that its directives have less force or power?
    – liturgy or faith – not merely restating beliefs but emotion & experience
    – too much attention to primitive and Oriental liturgies
    – fear of the growing tendency of Protestant dogma
    – limits are so extended that even Protestants are included
    – biological image – Body of Christ
    – exaggerated importance given to the Mystical Body of Christ
    – priesthood of the laity is exaggerated over the functional priesthood
    – that the community mass is more important that private masses

    All of these points were addressed by Pius XII in Mediator Dei and this also has to be a part of the historical context.

    A few observations:
    – my study indicates that the tradition that the liturgy is the * summit and source/font of the church’s life* (borrowed from Council of Trent) was, for many, the best starting point in terms of structure, theology, and schema. If I am not mistaken, the initial curial schema did not place liturgy first – this was a result of the initial vote and rejection of Ottaviani’s approach.
    – in terms of Fr. Ruff’s second point – way too early to make assertions that the reformed liturgy led to poor participation in the 21st century. Jack’s sociological contributions, CARA studies, etc. would indicate that this is a ROTR meme. It is a valid question that has yet to be fully answered
    – trajectories – would contrast today’s retrenchment ecumenically versus the tenor and times of 1962. If anything, the ROTR and last two papacies have seen a decided roll back from one of the primary *ad extra* goals of SC and VII. (would definitely feel that the council fathers would not see the Anglican Ordinariate as an example of ecumenism)

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      @Bill deHaas – comment #15:

      Not just dating back to WWII but much further: Beauduin’s intervention at the Louvain conference in 1909 is generally held to be the starting point of the Liturgical Reform Movement, but the seeds are to be found even earlier in the writings of Bishop, Duchesne and others earlier still. This is one of the dangers of studying a paragraph at a time in isolation — the larger picture can be missed. In this respect, I am very happy to read J. Peter Nixon’s contribution at # 14, with its emphasis on the liturgical movement and the ecumenical movement.

      Rita Ferrone at # 9 emphasizes the fact that this paragraph sets out an agenda not just for the liturgy but first and foremost for the Church as a whole. That final sentence, which says therefore (I know we have debated this word above) they wanted to start with the liturgy, is provocative in the extreme. It can be read to say “Actually we want to start with the liturgy because we think that it, in particular, is lacking in vigor, is straitjacketed by structures and rubrics, is unecumenical, and lacking in appeal and attractiveness to humanity as a whole.”

      Some have already said that this paragraph doesn’t explicitly call for liturgical reform — once again showing the dangers of considering paragraphs one by one in isolation from each other. Paragraph 21 is quite clear about the need for reform:

      “In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.”

      In combination with paragraph 1, the Fathers’ thrust is undeniable.

      Reply
      1. Bill deHaas

        @Paul Inwood – comment #17:
        Thanks, Paul – agree wholeheartedly but didn’t want to be as bold as you since my comments seem to be perceived as *bloviating*.

        Both Congar and Bugnini’s personal notes frequently acknowledge the liturgical predecessors you have named plus more.

        Also, strongly agree with your feelings about taking single paragraphs/numbers out of context – reminds me of some commenters who advocate that you must read each word/number as it is with no reference to context, history, who composed and from what sources, etc. and downplaying any attempt to describe the *spirit of VII* (reminds me of the US constitutional argument called “originalism” -as if that is possible?)

      2. Thomas Dalby

        @Bill deHaas – comment #19:
        I have to strongly disagree with you, Bill.

        The authority of SC and the other Council documents is that they are documents agreed upon by the Council Fathers. While I am sure that some of the Fathers would have been aware of and in accord with the train of thought that actuated Congar and Bugnini, many other members of the Council would not have been familiar with or agreed with the conclusions of those gentlemen and their party.

        We should go no further than SC itself, because SC is what the Fathers chose to leave us with: the fact that a phrase or a sentence may have been crafted by Mgsr X does not mean that the collected writings of Mgsr X are an infallible guide to the thought of the Council Fathers when they chose to adopt that wording.

  13. Philip Sandstrom

    For what it is worth here are two other translations of the text: “eas instititiones quae mutationibus obnoxiae sunt, ad nostrae aetatis necessitates melius accommodare;” 1) from Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press,1990: “to adapt those structures which are subject to change so as better to meet the needs of our time;” and 2) from Vatican II, L’íntégrale, Édition bilingue révisée, Bayard, Paris, 2002: “de mieux adapter aux nécessités de notre époque celles des institutions qui sont sujettes à des changements;”

    My own suspicion is that most of this document was written in French (or by French-speakers) in the first place. I understand there was at least a ‘pre-Latin’ working text which I do not have, but did ‘hear tell’ from some ‘who were there.’ This presumption could provide some ‘insight’ to the ‘inscape’ of the text — as Gerard Manley Hopkins might put it.

    Reply
    1. Peter Haydon

      @Philip Sandstrom – comment #20:
      My Fides copy of the text in French has the same text.
      Incidentally the whole paragraph begins: “Puisque le saint Concile se propose….” I think that the English for that would be “Whereas the holy Council proposes….” or even “As the holy Council proposes…”
      Whilst my “therefore” (see comment 13 above) is not otherwise there in the French (il estime qu’il lui revient à un titre particulier de veiller aussi à la restaruation et au progrès de la liturgie” I think that it is paragraph 2 that we will find the explanation. Rita in 9 above seems to me to be right that this is the fathers lining themselves up.
      It does offer Fr Jan, comment 12, another idea of “progress” in liturgy.

      Now I see that immediately preceding the first paragraph is a sort of dedication: “Paul, Bishop servant of the servants of God together with the Fathers of the sacred council puts on permanent record the constitution on the sacred liturgy.” which in French is “pour que le souvenir s’en maintienne à jamais” which seems to have a different slant.

      Reply
  14. Philip Endean Sj

    I should probably come clean as the chief author of the Tanner translation (and I wouldn’t do some of it quite that way now).

    It strikes me now as significant that, despite the semi-colons, this paragraph is basically one sentence, and that the main clause is ‘suum esse arbitratur’: ‘judges —and with quite special reason—even (etiam, perhaps just ‘also’) the taking of steps towards the renewal and growth of the liturgy as something it can and should do.’

    The syntax seems to me to suggest a stress on the Council’s right and duty to introduce change into the Church, and even into a liturgical tradition often accredited with an aura of untouchability. A serious and controversial point was being made about how Christ’s institutiones(beginnings?) were compatible with some change, albeit limited in scope. And the general grandiloquence might well have been a strategy aimed at pre-empting objection to the very principle of change.

    Reply
  15. Fr. Jack Feehily

    As I read through the comments, it occurs to me that even more consideration needs be given to the Eurocentricity of the church as a context for understanding the council in general and this document in particular. The decline in the vigorous practice of the faith throughout Europe was already well established by the time of John XXIII’s election. Cultural Catholicism had proven to be an insufficient vehicle for handing on the gospel, and the Mass had become for many more mystifying than mystical. John’s diplomatic experiences in Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey exposed him to the painful consequences of disunity in the church. His final posting in France after the war allowed him to see the terrible decline of the Church’s “eldest daughter”. I am not the first to suggest that this period in his life led him to see the need for a reinvigoration or renewal in the life of the Church. The language of this opening paragraph expresses a longing on the part of the Pope and all but four of the Council Fathers to begin this renewal with a needed reform of those things that could be changed in the Sacred Liturgy.
    It was not their task or responsibility to speculate on how this document would be received and how its principles would be implemented on a practical level. I believe they were inspired to breathe new life into the liturgical rites so that their meaning and purpose would be more evident. That some priests may have (know of no proof that any ever actually did) celebrated “clown Masses” or otherwise profaned the liturgical rites is irrelevant to the stated purposes of this critically important document.

    Reply
  16. Paul F Ford

    I don’t yet have a copy of Francisco Gil Hellín’s Concilii Vaticani II synopsis in ordinem redigens schemata cum relationibus necnon patrum orationes atque animadversiones: Constitutio de sacra liturgia Sacrosanctum concilium, so I am going from memory here. I seem to recall that §1’s use of instaurandumis meant to evoke the motto of Saint Pius X [“Instaurare omnia in Cristo”—Ephesians 1:10] as a way to begin the council on a non-controversial note.

    Reply
  17. Bill deHaas

    Paul and Paul – to expand on my earlier thoughts and taken from Bugnini’s Reform of the Liturgy:
    – why liturgy first? Estimation that hundreds of years of experience and the emphasis of Trent created a *kind of intellectual separation between rites and their theological contents.* Trent dealt with doctrinal liturgical questions and left the rites up to successive popes. This distinction became incorporated into the *new* Code of Canon Law (1917).
    – actually, prior to Beauduin, Bugnini goes back to Gueranger (1870’s)
    – after Mediator Dei – you have the Pian Commission (1946-1961) that resulted in a liturgical commission in1948 to 1960 with 82 mtgs working in absolute secrecy – so much so that when the Ordo Sabbati Sancti instaurate was published in 1951, it caught everyone by surprise. (Montini kept Pius XII abreast of these meetings; and Bea,SJ his confessor and member of the committe)
    – noted accomplishments – Easter Vigil, Bugnini’s Ephemerides Liturgicae that used surveys to get feedback, Assisi Congress (1956) – International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy – key lectures by Bea on scripture and Jungmann on the pastoral idea in liturgical history.
    – prepartory commission established on January 25, 1959 (well before start of first session) resulted in 250 pages (text, declarations, notes) – later John XXIII appointed the VII central committee (June, 1960) – interesting story about a new commission head who, in secret, took the above schemata, had someone rewrite per his conservative leanings. The declarations/notes were deleted (thus, the context, reasons for, why/what, etc.) and key schema were changed so that it merely gave general principles and left all pastoral decisions to the Holy See. The Council’s first action was to restore the original schemata, declarations, notes.

    Two key areas contributed to the above – latin and sacred music.

    After rejecting the curial agenda, the second session put its stamp on the *pastoral* emphasis by choosing liturgy to be first. Wonder if this was one way of applying *lex orandi; lex credendi”

    Reply
    1. Peter Rehwaldt

      @Bill deHaas – comment #25:

      Bugnini’s description of the formation of the preparatory commission is quite interesting when laid alongside SC 1. He lays out various considerations at work in selecting the members of the commission. The first three were these:

      1) liturgical professionals: bishops, scholars, and experts

      2) nationality: “every part of the world in which the liturgical movement was active had to be represented on the commission, and this in a real and not a fictitious way.”

      3) competence: in addition to historians, experts in other fields were necessary, including “theology, pastoral activity, music, law, and art.”

      The last concern I will quote at greater length: “A fourth element could not be overlooked: the contribution of the various spiritualities that flourish in the Church. The monastic orders, which had proved their surpassing merit in the area of liturgy, could have furnished the majority of the commission’s members, but the commission decided to profit also from the very valuable contribution to be made by the other religious families of antiquity, the Middle Ages, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and more recent times. As a result, the Benedictines, Premonstatensians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, Oratorians, Vincentians, Redemptorists, and some modern congregations were all represented on the commission. And because by the express will of the Holy Father the pastoral outlook was to be predominant in the preparatory work, about ten parish priests, various directors of pastoral liturgical centers, and twelve bishops ensured the presence of this outlook on the commission.”

      After re-reading this section of Bugnini, especially that section above, I am struck by the use in SC I of phrases like “Christian life of the faithful” and “all who believe” and “the whole of mankind.” SC I emphasizes the fullness of the Church as well as the fullness of the liturgy in the life of the Church.

      Reply
    2. Paul Inwood

      @Bill deHaas – comment #25:

      – why liturgy first?

      Although we may like to think that this was because the Council Fathers thought the liturgy was the most important area to treat, the actual reason is more prosaic: the preparatory work on this document was in a far more advanced state than any of the others. It was thus much simpler and quicker to get it into final shape.

      Reply
  18. Jack Rakosky

    Rita # 9 said It’s worth observing that the preface or preamble to CSL is unlike the beginning of any other Vatican II document. It sets forth the goals of the Council, and thus serves not only as an introduction to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, but to the entire work of the Council.

    Drucker, the management guru, maintains the modern organization of many differently talented and educated workers is an innovation of the last 150 years. Organizations such as hospitals have been totally changed in the last century.

    In a way the hospital as we know it today is the creation of a totally obscure and forgotten Catholic hospital administrator of the 1930s and 1940s (who taught me all I know), Sister Justina in Evanston, Indiana. She was the first person to think through what patient care is. Managing the Nonprofit Organization , p. 24

    The Church is a modern organization, more modern than many think. The documents of Vatican II are management documents since they are policy statements and “Church” is the most frequently used word.

    In defining the purpose of a business (e.g. “Church”) Drucker says the key question is not what is the organization, or what does it do, but who are its customers. The purpose of an organization is to create customers.

    Drucker says most organizations have at least two customers, i.e. the first two defined by the Preamble: the consumer it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful and the middlemen, i.e. various church institutions to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change .

    The Council, ahead of its time, defined its industry as a customer, to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ and all mankind as its customer to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church

    The Preamble is a very fine start to a set of management documents.

    Reply
  19. Peter Rehwaldt

    Again from Bugnini, p. 33:
    * * *
    In the first session of the Council, votes were taken on all the amendments for Chapter 1. This chapter was approved on December 7, 1962, except for very minor revisions (modi) that were to be presented during the second session. Pope John XXIII was therefore able to say on December 8, 1962, as he brought the first session to a close:

    It was no accident that the first schema to be considered was the one dealing with the sacred liturgy. The liturgy has to do with man’s relationship with God. This relationship is of the utmost importance. It must be based on the solid foundation of revelation and apostolic teaching, so as to contribute to man’s spiritual good; and that, with a broadness of vision which avoids the superficiality and haste often characterizing relationships among men.

    * * *

    This squares well with the last paragraph of the post, in that the reform, renewal, and refocusing of the Church have their source in the relationship with God to which John XXIII referred in the quote above.

    Reply
    1. Bill deHaas

      @Peter Rehwaldt – comment #29:
      Peter – note that December 7, 1962 was exactly 400 hundred years to the day when the Council of Trent closed. Bugnini states that Trent never really addressed liturgy – it was an afterthought with liturgical details left to the papal office after the council ended compared to SC and Vatican II which placed liturgy and reform as the most important and first task.

      Reply
  20. Fr. Sanchez

    “to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change .”

    What “Pray Tell,” are those institutions which are NOT subject to change? Because it seems, practically speaking, that following the Council virtually everything was subject to change and adaptation and only a semblance of scaffolding was left from the form of the Roman Rite then in use. Could someone give us some background about some of the conclusions liturgical scholars came to at that point in history?

    Why, just recently ‘the Rite of Exorcism,” was also changed. To what purpose? Did we need to deal with the devil in a more “inter religious” manner? The instructions to the Rite of Exorcism did need to be updated in as much as it needed to take into account the advances in modern psychology. But, why tinker with the rite itself save for the sake of change?

    It begs the question, “Who decides what is changeable and what is not?” What role does tradition play in these decisions? Doesn’t this go to the heart of much debate today? Did the Council Fathers ever answer the question themselves or did they leave it to a future committee to decided? Was what they decided correct or does it need to be reevaluated? Was “adapt and change” so much in the air that the Council’s desire to preserve what couldn’t be changed subsequently fall by the wayside?

    Reply
  21. Jim Pauwels

    This has been a most enlightening discussion, and I hope that the other paragraphs will receive the same consideration!

    Reply
  22. Paul Inwood

    Philip Sandstrom : My own suspicion is that most of this document was written in French (or by French-speakers) in the first place. I understand there was at least a ‘pre-Latin’ working text which I do not have, but did ‘hear tell’ from some ‘who were there.’ This presumption could provide some ‘insight’ to the ‘inscape’ of the text — as Gerard Manley Hopkins might put it.

    According to Joseph Gelineau, who was there as a peritus, the text was drafted by Msgr Johannes Wagner of the Liturgical Institute in Trier and Canon Aimé-Georges Martimort of the Institut Catholique in Paris. Both these gentlemen were competent Latinists, and Gelineau was fluent in Italian as were many German liturgists of the time, so it seems likely that one or other of those two languages would have been used for drafting.

    Reply
  23. Paul Inwood

    Fr. Sanchez : “to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change .” What “Pray Tell,” are those institutions which are NOT subject to change? Because it seems, practically speaking, that following the Council virtually everything was subject to change and adaptation and only a semblance of scaffolding was left from the form of the Roman Rite then in use. Could someone give us some background about some of the conclusions liturgical scholars came to at that point in history?

    Joseph Gelineau often used to liken the liturgy to a house. You need four walls and a roof, and a front door by which to enter, but you can arrange the interior of the house in any way you like. You can choose the color of the wallpaper or paint in each room. You can arrange the furniture in any way you like. You can even decide to have living room upstairs and bedrooms downstairs. As long as you don’t do anything silly like putting the fridge behind the front door so that no one can get in, and as long as everyone knows where the bathroom is, the remainder of the arrangement is up to the inhabitants.

    But you do need the four walls and the roof — those are the immutable elements. So says Gelineau.

    Those immutable elements would include, for example, the use of scripture in the liturgy, the larger structures (e.g. Gathering — Liturgy of the Word — symbolic action — sending forth), an ordained presider for Eucharist and certain other sacraments, and so on. It seems to me that for Gelineau and many others the four walls and roof were precisely what Fr Sanchez calls “scaffolding”. They hold up the edifice, but many of the other details of the building have varied widely across the millennia and are not of themselves articles of faith.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Sanchez

      @Paul Inwood – comment #36:
      That’s very interesting Paul. But, how does this fit in with the historical development in both east and west of a gradual solidifying anaphora(s) and families of rites that originated in the Apostolic Sees which need to be respected as coming from Apostolic Tradition? This seems to be the view of Cardinal Ratzinger in the Spirit of the Liturgy and its disregard is the source of the apparent discontinuity that traditionalists persive.

      Reply
  24. Todd Flowerday

    The biggest breach in style would be the upgrade from the quickie Low Mass to the modern Sunday Mass.

    Reply
  25. Jim McKay

    Europe generally, and the Church within it, was devastated in the 1940s. Millennium long ideologies were overturned as kings disappeared and were replaced by democracies. Faced with the horrors of the Holocaust, John XXIII learned to work with and for non Catholics. The overthrow of that era of persecution, and not triumphalism, was the basis for John XXIII’s optimism. It was a real triumph which put to shame the Church’s triumphalism.

    The relative prosperity of the last 50 years has allowed the prophets of doom to resurface. Every year some disaster shakes us and brings out cries of impending doom. Pope John lived through an era of daily disasters, and learned about real hope. He tried to bring that hope to the world, but pessimists and naysayers trivialized his efforts.

    That is the hope expressed in this first paragraph. Reforms ad intra would bring new vigor, and that would draw Christians together to bring peace to the world. Eurocentric? Certainly. Naive? In no way.

    Reply
  26. Jonathan Day

    I don’t know which words became ‘softer’ in later Latin or modern ecclesiastical Latin.

    However I doubt that obnoxius became any softer, given its etymology (ob, ‘facing’ + noxa, ‘hurt, injury, punishment’). The sense is not just of things that can be changed but of those that should be. This is

    The choice of verbs in article 1 strengthens this, for me: they are dynamic, verbs that don’t leave their objects unchanged:

    augere, ‘to increase’
    accommodare, ‘to adapt or adjust’
    fovere, ‘to encourage, foster, foment, keep warm’
    roborare, ‘to [physically] strengthen, reinforce’

    and then there are the gerundives, which often convey action or purpose:

    instaurandam, ‘restoring, renewing’
    fovendam, ‘encouraging, fostering’

    The article is a call to action. It launches the Constitution with an eye toward the future and a sense of energy.

    Reply
  27. Paul F Ford

    I just put in my Dropbox the scan I did of the first part of the 23 July 1962 schema constitutionis de sacra liturgia so that those who wish can compare the Latin texts of what was proposed and what is the final text: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7331043/schema%20constitutionis%20de%20sacra%20liturgia.pdf

    Reply
  28. Fr. Jan Michael Joncas

    I would like to offer one nuance to the trope of the “optimism” of the Council Fathers. It may be helpful to remember that the world in which the Council Fathers met was still in the grips of the Cold War and in the dissolution of the colonialist power-blocs in Africa and Asia. Many of the Council Fathers themselves had come of age during the Second World War and had a profound sense of the possible destruction of humanity unleashed by the use of nuclear weapons. I find this juxtaposition of dates especially telling: 16 October — John Kennedy is shown evidence of the installation of Soviet offensive missiles in Cuba; 18 October — US Navy fighter squadron moved to S Florida from which it could easily attack Cuba; 20 October — the Council Father’s “Message to the World” at the beginning of the First Period; 22 October — Kennedy’s address to the US public announcing the beginning of a naval blockade, the “Cuban Missile Crisis.” A great change in global politics, it seems to me, between the period of the Vatican II and now, is that fears of global destruction then seemed to hinge on the actions of opposed “superpowers” leading the “Free World” and the “Communist States”; now our fears of global destruction seem to hinge proximately on the actions of rogue states or terrorist organizations or remotely on changes to our eco-systems.

    Reply
  29. Jonathan Day

    Thank you, Paul!

    Here is the earlier version:

    Sacrosanctum Concilium, cum sibi proponat vitam christianam inter fideles in dies augere; institutiones ecclesiasticas, prout mutationibus obnoxiae sunt, nostrae aetatis necessitatibus melius aptare; quidquid ad unionem fratrum separatorum in Ecclesia quoquo modo conferre potest, fovere; et quidquid ad omnes in sinum Ecclesiae vocandos concurrit, roborare; suum esse ducit peculiare ratione etiam de instauranda atque fovenda Liturgia curare.

    And the final version:

    Sacrosanctum Concilium, cum sibi proponat vitam christianam inter fideles in dies augere; eas institutiones quae mutationibus obnoxiae sunt, ad nostrae aetatis necessitates melius accommodare; quidquid ad unionem omnium in Christum credentium conferre potest, fovere; et quidquid ad omnes in sinum Ecclesiae vocandos conducit, roborare; suum esse arbitratur peculiari ratione etiam instaurandam atque fovendam Liturgiam curare.

    It looks as though the revisers made a few refinements of grammar and style: quidquid ad omnes in sinum Ecclesiae vocandos concurrit, roborare means something like “to strengthen whatever comes together in calling all into the bosom of the Church”, and conducit looks like a better choice.

    Interesting that the final document removed the qualifier “ecclesiastical” from the institutions needing reform. I am not sure whether aptare, from the early version and accommodare, from the later, are all that different – both seem to mean ‘to fit or adapt one thing to another’.

    The prout before mutationibus obnoxiae sunt seems to strengthen the interpretation I proposed above: ‘to the extent that the ecclesiastical institutions require reform on account of changes…’

    In general, though, no major change from the proposed schema to what the Council proclaimed.

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      quotation from Jonathan Day, comment #45: The prout before mutationibus obnoxiae sunt seems to strengthen the interpretation I proposed above: ‘to the extent that the ecclesiastical institutions require reform on account of changes…’

      If prout is to be taken literally, it’s important to remember that SC hasn’t established any intellectual boundaries yet. After all, this is the first paragraph of the the preface. In any event, I’ve long been convinced that words such as prout, scilicet, ita etc. are merely grace notes added to highlight a point or allow for a thought pause. Compare to “genau” in spoken German.

      Jonathan: Interesting that the final document removed the qualifier “ecclesiastical” from the institutions needing reform.

      Perhaps a reference to the hierarchical and institutional structure of the Catholic Church (ecclesiasticas) was omitted in the final version in order to highlight the change from ad unionem fratrum separatorum in Ecclesia in the draft to ad unionem omnium in Christum credentium in the final copy. It appears that SC desires to include the whole of Christianity and not principally the faithful of the Universal Church in a discussion of liturgical reform. The change from the depiction of other Christian traditions as necessarily inferior in the draft to perhaps an implied “equality in separation” between the Catholic Church and Christians of other traditions in the final copy is quite radical. It’s even more significant given that the recognition of other Christian traditions as worthy in their own right is included in the very preface of the constitution on the sacred liturgy!

      It’s quite remarkable and refreshing to note that the first constitution of Vatican II almost immediately states its intention to break down one of the high dividing walls of Trent: a formidable barrier between Catholicism and the reformation traditions.

      Reply
      1. Joshua Vas

        @Jordan Zarembo – comment #63:
        Jordan, according to the rationale submitted for each of the changes, they are somewhat unrelated. The “ad unionem fratrum separatorum in Ecclesia” was changed because of the headache involved in trying to describe the precise nature of the relationship between the separated brothers and sisters and the Church and the senses in which each of the words should be taken. i.e. should the phrase used be “in Ecclesia”? or “in Ecclesiam” or “cum Ecclesia”, etc.

        The removal of “ecclesiastical” is explained thusly: “sic clarius apparet Liturgiam non poni inter institutiones quae elementis divina immutabilis non continent.”

  30. Bill deHaas

    Jim McKay : Faced with the horrors of the Holocaust, John XXIII learned to work with and for non Catholics. The overthrow of that era of persecution, and not triumphalism, was the basis for John XXIII’s optimism. It was a real triumph which put to shame the Church’s triumphalism. That is the hope expressed in this first paragraph. Reforms ad intra would bring new vigor, and that would draw Christians together to bring peace to the world.

    Fr. Joncas – agree with your nuance but would also add that many of the VII participants and periti spent time in Nazi prison camps and this had a significant impact on their council involvment e.g. Haring.

    Finally, even at the end of the prepartory period and shift to the central committee both Lercaro (senior cardinal in the meeting and Bugnini were not chosen to be on the SC committee breaking tradition – this exiled Bugnini until Paul VI appointed him Consilium secretary in 1964. (so, you can see that resistance and internal poltics were at play from the beginning and it gives a lie to those who continue to demonize folks such as Congar, Bugnini, etc.)

    Thanks, Jim for correcting a generalization based upon opinion and not historical facts. It goes along with these opinions – “Perhaps the clericalism of the academics in the church” & “For the most part the laity were content with the status quo” Those academics pushed strongly and significanly to place baptism and the people of God first theologically rather than the insitutional church and as my earlier post from german bishop (1942) indicated lay actions in the liturgy.

    Paul Inwood – yes, practical preparations but, as I put a timeline together, it is much deeper than that. The Pian Reforms indicate both a pastoral need and lay requests that had the intimate support of Pius XII and Montini (Paul VI). These are the underpinnings for the prepatory materials and thus the council vote to make this a pastoral priority.

    Reply
  31. Michael Podrebarac

    We keep reading on this blog (and on others) that only 20 percent of the faithful ever darken the doors of the church or “go to Mass anymore” which is quite a misuse of the statistics.

    When one adds those who attend once-or-twice a month, and those who attend less frequently than that but more often than just Christmas and Easter, the percentage of Catholics attempting to keep some connection to the Church rises quite a bit (in the 2005 CARA statistics, I believe almost to 60 percent). No, this is not ideal, but it says something different than the “only 20 percent practice their faith anymore” assertion does.

    Likewise, to suggest that “at least” 90 percent of the faithful attended Sunday Mass “before” Vatican II and were “content” stretches the facts just a bit. This same lot of so-called contentment decreased significantly between 1958 and the time the council ended. Between 1965 and 1970 there was another drop, and then a sloping drop since that time has persisted (again according to the 2005 CARA statistics). The 1958 Gallup Poll indicated weekly Mass attendance at 78 percent, often considred its recorded high point for the U.S. From which particular statistical assessment or survey comes the 90 percent figure being touted about?

    Not taking sides here, but just wanting to make sure we are speaking accurately here. Accuracy is necessary if these sorts of discussions are to avid becoming volleys of mere polemic.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Michael Podrebarac – comment #47:
      A helpful note. Many assumptions are present when offering statistics to prop up one’s worldview. In the US, the figure usually given is 25-35%, the lower figure in dioceses with poor episcopal leadership on child protection.

      If 50% of Catholics attend 70% of the time, that’s a 35% attendance rate. What if they receive the Eucharist only 90 percent of the time. Does that shave it off to 31.5?

      If 20 or 35 or even 50% of Catholics rarely received Communion, is that necessarily better than a 50/70/90 metric?

      One interesting statistic to consider is the US public satisfaction with church leadership. It surpassed Protestants just once since 1950, at its highwater mark of 73% in 1975. A sloping drop since then, with two bottoms-out: 2002 for you-know-what, and 2007. If Fr McDonald is prepared to blame the 1970 Missal for the 25/35%, would he raise a peep about the confluence of Summorum Pontificum and 2007? For the record, I wouldn’t. But the longer trends are telling.

      I also appreciate Fr Joncas reminding us of the meta-setting in world affairs. The “optimism” I referred to comes from my most recent reading of the range of conciliar and post-conciliar liturgy documents, perhaps less a good feeling about the Cold War. It just seems to me there was a more positive sense of liturgical reform up until 1970. After that, complaints about experimentation and all. But really, what did they expect? And then a bad turn in the 90’s of course.

      Reply
      1. Michael Podrebarac

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #50:
        Thanks, Todd. Your comments are quite insightful and get to the heart of the matter.

        I would also cite the example of Poland, whose Church participation rates were the envy of the western world during the 1970’s through the mid-1990’s, but which have dropped considerably since the fall of Communism. As I recall, Pope John Paul II actually chided his fellow Poles, during his last visit there, for the decline in Church attendance and the decline in upholding Church teachings. Seems like the 1970 Missal and had very little to do with Poland’s recent rate changes.

        Peace, and all good.

      2. Stanislaus Kosala

        The story of the rate of Mass attendacne in Poland post communism is very interesting. You can see a graph of average Mass attendance in the past 20 years here: http://www.iskk.pl/kosciolnaswiecie/75-dominicantes.html

        It should also be noted that the liturgical reforms of the council were introduced very gradually and in a manner that downplayed discontinuity(the sign of peace was only introduced in 1979), in most churches the tabernacles are behind the main altar, communion on the hand is technically permitted(since 2006) but I know several people to whom priests have refused to place the host in the hand, and I have never seen it done myself, communion kneeling in many places is also still common, etc.

  32. Joshua Vas

    From the book suggested by Paul Ford in the other thread – three prior incarnations of article 1:

    PREPARATORY COMMISSION DRAFT:

    Sacrosanctum Concilium, cum sibi proponat vitam christianam inter fideles in dies augere; institutiones ecclesiasticas prout mutationibus obnoxiae sunt, nostrae aetatis necessitatibus melius aptare; quidquid ad unionem fratrem separatorum in Ecclesia quoquo modo conferre possit, fovere; et quidquid ad omnes in sinum Ecclesiae vocandos concurrat, roborare; suum esse ducit peculiari ratione etiam de fovenda atque instauranda Liturgia curare.

    SCHEMA:DE SACRA LITURGIA

    Sacrosanctum Concilium, cum sibi proponat vitam christianam inter fideles in dies augere; institutiones ecclesiasticas prout mutationibus obnoxiae sunt, nostrae aetatis necessitatibuss melius aptare; quidquid ad unionem fratrem separatorum in Ecclesia quoquo modo conferre potest, fovere; et quidquid ad omnes in sinum Ecclesiae vocandos concurrit, roborare; suum esse ducit peculiari ratione etiam de instauranda atque fovenda Liturgia curare.

    EMENDED TEXT AFTER OBSERVATIONS FROM THE FATHERS

    Sacrosanctum Concilium, cum sibi proponat vitam christianam inter fideles in dies augere; eas institutiones quae mutationibus obnoxiae sunt, ad nostrae aetatis necessitates melius accommodare; quidquid ad unionem omnium in Christum credentium conferre potest, fovere; et quidquid ad omnes in sinum Ecclesiae vocandos conducit, roborare; suum esse arbitratur peculiari ratione etiam instaurandam atque fovendam Liturgiam curare.

    FINAL VERSION:

    Sacrosanctum Concilium, cum sibi proponat vitam christianam inter fideles in dies augere; eas institutiones quae mutationibus obnoxiae sunt, ad nostrae aetatis necessitates melius accommodare; quidquid ad unionem omnium in Christum credentium conferre potest, fovere; et quidquid ad omnes in sinum Ecclesiae vocandos conducit, roborare; suum esse arbitratur peculiari ratione etiam instaurandam atque fovendam Liturgiam curare.

    Reply
  33. Fr. Jan Michael Joncas

    @Todd Flowerday – comment #50:
    The nuance I was attempting to offer was to combat a trope I rather frequently hear that the Council Fathers’ “optimism” was a kind of naiveté vis-a-vis the world and its possibilities stemming from their immersion in/seduction by the “swinging 60s.” I would rather see their “optimism” (if that’s even the right word for it) as an expression of their faith in the power of grace operating on and in human nature acting in history: both nature and history weakened by sin, but redeemed. I believe that that would have some implications both for their understandings of liturgical renewal and the mission of the Church.

    Reply
  34. Stephen Palmer

    I thank you for the theologically insightful comment on the power of grace as opposed to the political interpretation of “naiviete”

    Reply
  35. Jack Feehily

    I appreciate the scholars among us, but I’m beginning to wonder how useful Latin texts are to all who come to pray tell. I had five years of the mother tongue but it’s been a very long time. I’m perfectly happy to skim such texts and move forward but though this was worth mentioning.

    Reply
    1. Jonathan Day

      @Jack Feehily – comment #52:
      Jack, I think the Latin is only useful or even interesting if it sheds some light on what the Council was trying to do. The point of my comments was simply to show that there was a strong agenda of reform — a sense that things needed to be changed. And as Paul and Joshua’s material demonstrates, this agenda for reform was there from the very start

      In the case of Dei Verbum, the Constitution on Divine Revelation, the preparatory schema prepared by the Curia (I think it was called De Fontibus Revelationis) was very different to what the Council adopted. In the case of the Liturgy Constitution, it was not. So we can reject any suggestion that SC somehow does not represent “the mind of the Church” or that it was foisted on the Council by aggressive progressives and their periti. You don’t need the Latin to establish this, but it strengthens the point.

      Reply
    2. Jack Rakosky

      @Jack Feehily – comment #52:

      My problem with the excessive emphasis on Latin, is that it seems to assume that somehow truth exists in the Latin text. It is the same feeling I got with the extensive and boring discussions of the Roman Missal translation. It all strikes me as getting too close to literal fundamentalism.

      I enjoy praying the Psalter in Latin, and I always look at what the Vulgate has to say when I use Bibleworks to study the Greek texts of Scripture. I like to get a historical flavor of how people using the Vulgate might have saw Scripture. But I also know they did not have much access to the Greek or Hebrew texts. So I don’t think their experience is normative for all time.

      I also have a problem with excessive historical emphasis whether it has to do with Scripture or Liturgy. Early on I liked historical studies because they were often data driven. But after reading so many conflicting historical studies, I was very relieved when Diane Bergant introduced me to a more literary approach to Scripture and told us NOT to read any historical commentaries on a Psalm until we had done our own literary analysis.

      I found a literary approach to Scripture empowered students while at the same time requiring discipline as Bergant would always ask “where precisely do you see that in the text?” Historical studies only seem to empower historians.

      Reply
      1. Jonathan Day

        @Jack Rakosky – comment #57:
        “Excessive emphasis?” Really, that seems … excessive.

        Right now the only access we have to the preparatory schema is in the Latin. And, as a few comments above have suggested — a few comments, not to be confused with many comments, in any sense of that word — the Latin might be a useful way to see how the text evolved, independent of translators’ choices.

        This isn’t to claim or assume that “somehow truth exists in the Latin text”. It is simply proposing the Latin as one vehicle, among many, for the literary analysis you suggest.

        Can we not live and let live on this? Skip over the Latin discussions if they are boring.

      2. Rita Ferrone

        @Jack Rakosky – comment #57:
        I agree with Jack Rakosky here, but for a different reason. As was pointed out by Paul Inwood, in comment 34, following on Phil Sandstrom’s earlier observation, the text of SC was probably written first in some modern language and then translated into Latin. Although I am sure that the skills of the periti in Latin were quite high, we are talking about a modern text composed by modern people. Although the Latin text may be the only “legal” basis for argument, as an historian I am pensive about according the Latin text a kind of absolute value akin to the canonical Scriptures or even to venerable prayer texts of the Roman Missal.

        Some have argued here for a firm boundary to be set at the text itself which the Council Fathers approved. A legal approach, ok as far as it goes. But then what to make of the fact that the knowledge of Latin among the Council fathers was variable?

        This said, I do appreciate Jonathan Day’s approach of lifting out a particular word for deeper consideration. Such words are chosen because they suggest certain alternative interpretations or meanings worthy of our consideration. We can’t absolutize popular translations either, obviously. But I would also be interested in the text’s “journey” so to speak, i.e. did anybody understand it this way or that? (I do not hold with the postmodern approach to texts that considers them untethered.)

        More wearying, and less helpful to thought (and I think this gets at the point Jack was raising) is the offering of long texts in Latin without a specific focus or reason.

      3. Paul Inwood

        @Rita Ferrone – comment #71:

        But then what to make of the fact that the knowledge of Latin among the Council fathers was variable?

        Someone will kindly remind me, I’m sure, which Council Father it was who, having very poor Latin, stood up and rendered his intervention in French, followed by resounding applause from all the other Fathers present, many of whom were having difficulty in following what was being said in Latin.

      4. John Ainslie

        @Paul Inwood – comment #73:
        Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh spoke on 23 October 1962 – 12 days after the beginning of the Council – in French. Robert Taft SJ comments: “He refused to speak in Latin, the language of the Latin Church, but not, he insisted, of the Catholic Church nor of his.” He was 84 years old at the time!

      5. Jeffrey Pinyan

        @Paul Inwood – comment #73:
        “It’s almost as good as Cardinal Spellman’s intervention on the Council floor in defence of keeping the Mass in Latin – delivered by His Eminence in such bad Latin, and drawing so many complaints from the Fathers, that they had to get someone (who understood Latin) to read it out for him!” (Chris G., Oct. 23, 2010)

  36. Bill deHaas

    Thanks, Jack – it also gets at an earlier opinion that you can only read the literal words to get the objective truth as this commenter states:

    ” We should go no further than SC itself, because SC is what the Fathers chose to leave us with: the fact that a phrase or a sentence may have been crafted by Mgsr X does not mean that the collected writings of Mgsr X are an infallible guide to the thought of the Council Fathers when they chose to adopt that wording.”

    Reminds me of the US Constitutional Law debates around *originalism*.

    Allow me to reframe borrowing from Mr. Vas:

    PREPARATORY COMMISSION DRAFT
    SCHEMA:DE SACRA LITURGIA
    EMENDED TEXT AFTER OBSERVATIONS FROM THE FATHERS
    FINAL VERSION

    It is also significant in terms of who voted, approved, and amended this SC 1 –
    …..keep in mind that dating back to the Pian Commission, it was in secret, separate from the Congregation of Rites, with no curial involvement, but under the authority and knowledge of Pius XII – this led to the preparatory version (which I cited earlier in terms of a curial cardinal trying to re-edit and derail but was trumped by the central committee) being re-affirmed by the council bishops in the schema, amended by the bishops, and voted approvingly with only 4 negative votes out of 2400+
    ….interesting historical pattern in which the papal office (Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI) chose to rely upon non-curial experts to effect liturgical reform (the curia’s historical pattern was to delay, ignore, stonewall, and obsfucate)
    ….the pattern identified a plan which the bishops with periti tried to achieve both ad intra and ad extra SC 1 goals to make pastoral liturgical decisions focused on active participation that would reach out to all Christian churches versus curial aims to derail, clearly desire that the council be only one session, take active steps in firing periti who taught in Roman seminaries/institutes; dismiss historical criticism; reinforce Tridentine liturgy, etc.

    Reply
  37. Mark Emery

    I agree with Mr. Feehlly’s #52, but on the other hand the expert comments on and analyses of the language as well as the historical and cultural contexts have been very interesting. I think Mr. Bauerschmidt made a concise and totally excellent summary of the Council Fathers’ intentions and objectives way back up there in #3, but it’s kind of been left on the wayside, unfortunately. I hope the forum will revisit his remarks at some point and linger on them.

    Reply
  38. Paul Inwood

    Fr. Sanchez : @Paul Inwood – comment #36: That’s very interesting Paul. But, how does this fit in with the historical development in both east and west of a gradual solidifying anaphora(s) and families of rites that originated in the Apostolic Sees which need to be respected as coming from Apostolic Tradition? This seems to be the view of Cardinal Ratzinger in the Spirit of the Liturgy and its disregard is the source of the apparent discontinuity that traditionalists persive.

    If you can show me a single one of the anaphoras that we currently use which does not employ one of the forms that can be found in the historical traditions of the earlier Church, I’ll be very interested to hear about it. Sure, the detailed content may vary, but the basic forms remain the same.

    We have discussed before on this blog the fact that Josef Ratzinger is a theologian, and he has his opinions, but he is no liturgist.

    Reply
  39. Mark Emery

    “This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful…The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”

    In other words, the Council wanted to draw Christians closer to Jesus through the liturgy…

    Reply
  40. Bill deHaas

    Question – per Bugnini’s journal, after the vote on the schema, the second session of the council took up the emendations (roughly 625). The whole council considered these emendations and each was introduced with an explanation. Wonder if those council explanations of each emendation might provide clues to changes made in the latin text, changes in words/language and give a context for what the council fathers were thinking?

    Believe that Jordan in the above post may have given an example of this – yes, it is a remarkable statement overwhelmingly approved that shows the ecumenical and theological grounding and desire to breakdown dividing walls. It also begins the pattern of the council to seek *unity* rather than *uniformity*.

    Reply
  41. Fr. Jan Michael Joncas

    I’d like to offer a reminder that we are trying to work through three perspectives on our re-reading of the text of SC: 1) what did the Council Fathers intend to communicate by means of the conciliar text (historical inquiry)? 2) how has the text been “received” over the last 50 years (a combination of historical and social science inquiry)? and 3) what trajectories might be recovered or furthered for the future in the light of today’s circumstances 50 years after the Council (a combination of theological and pastoral speculation)?

    I think I might show one way in which our initial concentration on an exegesis of the conciliar text (historical inquiry) might be helpful for the other inquiries. I think we’ve been able to establish that the Council Fathers committed themselves to a program of “instaurandam atque fovendam Liturgiam” to further the aims of the Council. Our text study has made it clear that these two words have a wide range of meaning: “instaurandam” could mean reforming/restoring/renewing while “fovendam” could mean cherishing/fostering/promoting the Liturgy. Mr. Rakovsky’s comment at #11 shows how operating on the nuance of “reforming” had some consequences both for our activity over the last fifty years and the present debates. I would go even further and suggest that there might be a world of difference between those who would see the text authorizing a “restoration” of the Liturgy and those who would see the text authorizing a “renewal” of the Liturgy, the former tending to seek to preserve as far as possible earlier ritual texts and patterns from whatever past era is considered normative or pastorally useful, the latter tending to generate new ritual texts and patterns arising from contemporary cultures considered as present-day embodiments of the gospel. There might also be a world of difference between those who would “cherish” a received set of liturgical texts and patterns and those who might “foster” a new set. I will continue my point in the next combox.

    Reply
  42. Fr. Jan Michael Joncas

    This insight could have implications both for the “reception” of the document over the last fifty years (i.e., people of good will but with varying horizons may claim to be faithful to both the letter and the spirit of the document while proposing very different practices) and for future trajectories (what is the proper reception of, e.g., Liturgiam Authenticam?).

    I thank Mr. Emery at #62 for his summary of the first aim the Council Fathers articulated in SC1: “That the Council wanted to draw Christians closer to Jesus through the liturgy” is a lovely paraphrase of “increasing the vigor of the the Christian life of the faithful.” I’d just remind us that the Council also wanted (2) to update/adapt/accommodate out-of-touch institutions to draw us closer to Jesus; (3) to foster ecumenical relations to lead Catholics and non-Catholics alike closer to Jesus; and (4) to do whatever it could in evangelical mission to draw all people closer to Jesus.

    I also thank Fr. Sanchez at #31 for his incisive question. Debates about which institutions not only can but must be changed as well have certainly marked the last fifty years. We will see that SC attempts to offer some guidance about which elements of the liturgy not only can but may/must be changed in later articles, guidance which has likewise been greatly debated over the last half century.

    Reply
  43. Mark Emery

    Father Joncas, thank you for redirecting the discussion to the three perspectives stated in your opening post; and thank you for your suggestion in the same post that the Council Fathers’ main desire was “to draw ALL people closer to Jesus.” (Emphasis mine.) That’s got to be it, in a nutshell.

    Broadly speaking, then, perspective #2 asks the question, “How did we do?” And #3 asks, “How can we do better?” -That is, in bringing people closer to Jesus.

    Reply
  44. Jim Pauwels

    Regarding this phrase: “to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ” – I don’t know the details of how it came about, but I believe that some of the Protestant churches adopted a common lectionary? Did that flow directly from the liturgical reform of Vatican II, or did it develop apart from the Council? Was it a case of those denominations consciously adapting themselves to our renewal?

    Reply
  45. Paul Inwood

    Jim Pauwels : Regarding this phrase: “to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ” – I don’t know the details of how it came about, but I believe that some of the Protestant churches adopted a common lectionary? Did that flow directly from the liturgical reform of Vatican II, or did it develop apart from the Council? Was it a case of those denominations consciously adapting themselves to our renewal?

    It flowed directly from the presence of Protestant observers at Vatican II. This led, in the English-speaking world, to the formation of the International Consultation on English Texts (ICET, not to be confused with ICEL, the Roman Catholic International Committee on English in the Liturgy). This body consisted of scholars from different Christian traditions, and was headed by Canon Ronald Jasper, then chair of the Church of England’s Liturgical Commission and an observer at Vatican II, and Canon Harold Winstone, founder of the St Thomas More Centre for Pastoral Liturgy in London and a translator for ICEL, who was also later chair of ICEL’s Advisory Committee for a decade. The pair also spearheaded the interdenominational Joint Liturgical Group (JLG), which still exists today. ICET also exists, but under a different name: ELLC (English Language Liturgical Consultation).

    The change of name from ICET to ELLC in 1985 accompanied the piloting of a trial version of the Revised Common Lectionary, sponsored by ELLC, which was definitively published in 1994. It is largely based on the RC 1969 Ordo Lectionum Missae, but modified to give a greater emphasis to the Old Testament, especially Wisdom literature. A substantial number of mainline non-catholic Christian Churches make use of it or have based their own lectionaries heavily on it. So yes, these denominations have based their own renewal on ours — and some have been influenced not only by our Lectionary but by our reform of the Mass too.

    Reply
  46. Jim Pauwels

    Paul Inwood, thanks for that history of Lectionary unity and ICET/ECCL. I’ve had occasion to contact the latter a couple of times to get their permission to reprint Gospel canticles in worship aids. They give permission with delighted (or so it seems to me) appreciation that anyone bothers to ask 🙂

    Reply
  47. Bill deHaas

    Same applied to Cardinal McIntyre – who could barely read the latin of the pre-VII mass; yet, uttered that the end of the latin mass would be the end of the church.

    Or, the joke that was started about the fact that the english speaking bishops wanted to have permission to say the office in english but keep the mass in latin (joke was so the people would not actually understand what was happening).

    Or the professors in seminaries who legally applied John XXIII’s MP on latin by starting every class with a sentence or two in latin and then conducting the rest of class in english.

    Reply
  48. Jack Rakosky

    Faggioli in True Reform p. 13-14 says that Peter Hunermann in a long and audaciously reasoned essay designates the corpus of conciliar texts as a “constitution” for the Catholic Church.

    Faggioli says This definition of the nature of texts of Vatican II establishes Vatican II as a corpus of hermeneutical principles for the life of the Catholic Church that is capable of establishing what is “constitutional” and “unconstitutional” in the ecclesiology of the postconciliar Catholic Church.

    While both Hunermann and Faggioli place quotation marks around “constitutional,” it is time to abandon analogies to the modern nation state. The Church has for most of its history not exercised directly the power of taxation nor the power of coercion although it has sometimes, as in the case of modern Germany, exercised these indirectly through the nation state. Very often the church, like other civic institutions, has enjoyed the benefaction of wealthy people.

    This document in its first article recognizes that the management of the Church, i.e. those who can exercise some control over some aspects of the Church, must also exercise leadership without coercion, i.e. influence by persuasion, over its members, its employees, people served by other churches, and the general public. In this, church management is not very different from the management of other large modern organizations. That is why I prefer to regard this as a policy making organizational document of a management rather than as a political document analogous to a constitution.
    See @Jack Rakosky – comment #28.

    Considering it as an organizational document rather than as a theological document, or a constitution opens it up to discussion as to how it might have been done better. Indeed Faggioli himself seems to prefer the ecclesiology of Sacrum Concilium to that of Lumen Gentium.

    Reply
  49. Jack Rakosky

    Building (instauro) and body (foveo) metaphors and the “capital” concept

    My classical Latin dictionary under “instauro” gives as meanings “ to erect, construct buildings” as well as “to perform, offer, celebrate religious rites” and “to repair, renew, restore and strengthen existing buildings” and to “renew, repeat and celebrate afresh religious rites.”

    If we think of the Liturgy as a temple and “instauro” as a building metaphor we can come very easily to the position of Inwood #36 and Gelineau that we can remodel the building anyway we want.

    My classical Latin dictionary under “foveo” talks in terms of a body metaphor, “to warm, and to keep warm, to use warm or cold applications on diseased parts of a body, to cherish, caress, love, support and assist.”

    If we think of the Liturgy, especially a Rite as a body, perhaps an aged body that has developed some disability, we are much more careful about how we go about getting it back in shape. Nevertheless a different diet and exercise may be necessary.

    Both Temple and Body are metaphors for the Church and so both building and body metaphors may be applicable to the Liturgy; we do not have to choose between them.

    Buildings and human beings are closely related to the concept of “capital.”

    At the beginning of “capitalism” capital was often investment in a building, e.g. a factory. The basic “capitalization” process took time to accumulate money and build the factory, then the factory as a capital investment would produce goods for a considerable amount of time with only a small amount of maintenance until eventually the factory wears out or becomes obsolete.

    The basic metaphor behind “capitalization” is an organic one, i.e. a plant, animal, or human being requires a certain amount of input until maturity when it then produces output on a regular basis without as much input until it declines in health.

    The capital in human capital, social capital, and cultural capital is best conceived as accumulated labor.

    Reply
  50. Deacon Steve Pent

    “to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change” – CELAM in the Aparecida document #365 perhaps went a step further by stating: “No community should excuse itself from entering decidedly with all its might into the ongoing processes of missionary renewal and from giving up outdated structures that are no longer helpful for handing on the faith.”

    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