Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 21

Vatican Website Translation:

III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy
21. 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 this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.
Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms:

Latin text:

III. De sacrae Liturgiae instauratione
21. Pia Mater Ecclesia, ut populus christianus in sacra Liturgia abundantiam gratiarum securius assequatur, ipsius Liturgiae generalem instaurationem sedulo curare cupit. Nam Liturgia constat parte immutabili, utpote divinitus instituta, et partibus mutationi obnoxiis, quae decursu temporum variare possunt vel etiam debent, si in eas forte irrepserint quae minus bene ipsius Liturgiae intimae naturae respondeant, vel minus aptae factae sint.
Qua quidem instauratione, textus et ritus ita ordinari oportet, ut sancta, quae significant, clarius exprimant, eaque populus christianus, in quantum fieri potest, facile percipere atque plena, actuosa et communitatis propria celebratione participare possit.
Quare Sacrosanctum Concilium generaliores has normas statuit.

Slavishly literal translation:

III. Concerning the renewing/restoring/reforming of the sacred Liturgy

21. The dutiful Mother Church, so that the Christian people might more securely obtain the abundance of graces in the sacred Liturgy, wishes diligently to attend to a general renewal/restoration/reform of that Liturgy. For the Liturgy consists of an unchangeable part, namely [that] divinely instituted, and of parts subject to change, which over the course of the times could or even ought to change, if into them by chance there have crept in those things which would correspond less well to the internal nature of the Liturgy itself or would be made less appropriate.

Indeed in this renewal/restoration/reform, the texts and rites ought to be so ordered that the holy things that they signify they might express more clearly, and the Christian people, insofar as can be done, could perceive them more easily and could participate/share in a full, active, and communally appropriate celebration.

To which end the Most Holy Council establishes these general norms.

The title of Chapter One reminds us of the focus the Council Fathers brought to this section of the Constitution: “Concerning the General Principles for Instaurandam (Reforming/Restoring/Renewing) and Fovendam (Promoting/Fostering/Cherishing) the Sacred Liturgy.” Part III (art. 21-40) will offer Norms for the Reforming/Restoring/Renewing of the Liturgy, while later sections of Chapter One will deal of the Promoting/Fostering/Cherishing of the Liturgy.

The first sentence of art. 21 makes it clear that the Council Fathers’ intention in undertaking a reform/restoration/renewal of the Liturgy was ultimately for pastoral purposes: so that the faithful might more deeply avail themselves of the divine life offered them through the liturgy.

The second sentence offers an important distinction between what might be termed the “core” immutable elements of a liturgical celebration that are declared to be an expression of God’s will and the changeable elements which, presumably, are human adornments which more or less effectively enshrine the “core.” Pray Tell readers may wish to discuss how this distinction has been explored and clarified in the last fifty years, as well as what aspects of this distinction still need exploration.

The second sentence is also forthright in recognizing that human, changeable elements may, over time, be inserted into liturgical celebration that could be out of harmony with its essence as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. Insofar as they obscure the inner nature of the liturgy, these elements are to be removed. The Council Fathers also note that there may be human, changeable elements inserted into liturgical celebration that may, at one time, have enshrined the “core” effectively for the worshipers of that era, but that these elements may have become less effective for later eras. Note that the Council Fathers do not give examples here of these two categories. Pray Tell readers may wish to offer some examples, both in terms of the liturgy that the Council Fathers knew fifty years ago and the liturgy that we experience today.

The pastoral focus of the Council Fathers’ liturgical reform/restoration/renewal comes to the fore in the next sentence. The words and ceremonies of the liturgy are to express more clearly to the participants the holy realities that they both point to and embody. This clarification of texts and rites is not for God’s sake, but for the sake of the worshipers, so that they might share in the liturgical celebration “fully, actively, and communally.” This topic has been of special interest to Pray Tell readers and they may wish to deepen their exploration of the Council Fathers’ intent by commenting on this article.

The final sentence makes a transition to the norms that follow. I would invite Pray Tell readers with canonical expertise to give us a deeper insight into what is meant by “more general norms” (generaliores…normas) and “establish” (statuit).

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

22 responses to “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 21”

  1. Paul Inwood

    It seems quite clear to me that the final sentence “Wherefore….” is a summation of all the preceding paragraphs, not just this one. In other words, it is the link between paras 1-21 and 22 onwards.

    It is difficult to indicate this typographically, but the additional space before this sentence in some printed versions lends credence to the theory.

    As far as things which are unchangeable and things which can/ought to be changed are concerned, I refer once again to Gelineau’s image of the liturgy as a house. You need, he said, four walls and a roof, and a front door to gain access. (These are the unchangeable elements, and would consist, I think, of things such as the use of scripture, the shape of celebrations so that the Liturgy of the Word always precedes and lays the pathway for the Liturgy of the Sacrament/Whatever follows, etc, etc.) But once you have those, he said, you can decorate the interior of your house in any way you like (think art and music), you can arrange the furniture as seems fit, determine the layout of the rooms (e.g. have the bedrooms downstairs and the living quarters and kitchen upstairs); and as long (he said) as you don’t do anything silly like putting a fridge behind the front door so that no one can get in, and as long as everyone knows where the bathroom is, then the layout of your house can be totally flexible.

    So — applying that to the Mass, I recall a celebration of the Eucharist at which Gelineau was actually present (though he did not plan the liturgy — I was responsible for that), during a Universa Laus international meeting 23 years ago, at which four musical “pillars” were the only things sung:

    1. An introductory/gathering/entrance song, which was actually also a blessing and sprinkling song
    2. A Gospel Processional
    3. A completely sung Eucharistic Prayer, from the Preface Dialogue to the Great Amen, with all the acclamations (and some additional ones, as a matter of fact)
    4. A Communion Antiphon and Psalm which covered the whole of the distribution

    That was all that was needed: the unchangeable musical elements, if you like.

    Reply
  2. Scott Pluff

    “[H]oly Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself… 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 other words, the bishops of the council agreed that the Church’s liturgy had problems significant enough to necessitate a “general restoration.” Something was wrong, there were problems, the celebration of liturgy was broken and needed to be fixed.

    It’s funny how today this sentiment has been tamed by many to read: the Church’s liturgy before the council was just wonderful and glorious, perhaps in need of a little tightening up, but otherwise simply marvelous in all ways. The council didn’t set out to change anything (for heaven’s sake!) but merely to remind us of what was already there, nothing more. Nothing to see here, please move on.

    Reply
    1. Bill deHaas

      @Scott Pluff – comment #2:
      You made me laugh, Scott. To your point from one of our usual commentors and his favorite blog:

      Allan posts: “But we know that under the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI he has encouraged post-Vatican II renewal by actually implementing the Second Vatican Council documents as written and not reading and interpreting them through the lens of discontinuity or rupture.”

      OR – “The biggest area in which progressive Catholics are freaking out in truly an irrational way is in liturgical reform of the reform. They absolutely despise the term “reform of the reform” because it implies that the first reform got it completely wrong and the spirit of Vatican II reform is even wronger (if I can use that progressive term).”

      As you humoursly say – well, now things are wonderful given B16’s correct implementation rather than through the lens of discontinuity or rupture – guess those 2,174 council fathers, Paul VI, Consilium got it wrong.
      OR now that we have the ROTR – well, that is*taming* the church’s liturgy – just needed some tightening up.

      Reply
  3. Jan Larson

    I recently heard from a young priest who argued that there were hundreds of Council bishops who did no want the old Latin liturgy reformed in any way, and that most bishops did not think the liturgy was inadequate in any pastoral sense. He would not believe that the Constitution that called for liturgical reform was approved by a vote of 2147 to 4. He vowed to check with Wikipedia to confirm my error. I am still wondering why he didn’t just check his personal copy of the Constitution…

    Reply
  4. Jim Pauwels

    “… holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself.”

    How significant it seems that it is not the Curia charged with this undertaking. Nor is it a conference of bishops. Nor a scholarly expert nor committee of experts. Rather, it is holy Mother Church.

    To my way of thinking, that encompasses a pretty wide swath of membership: people of many different cultures and backgrounds; people with many different denominational allegiances; saints; etc.

    Pursuant to this paragraph, the church has tried out methods and processes of continuing this restoration of the liturgy. Some have been relatively collegial and consultative. Some have been relatively centrally planned and decreed. None of them has left everyone satisfied. Perhaps we’re still searching for the best way for holy Mother Church to fulfill this mission.

    Reply
  5. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    I’m grateful to be brought into the discussion by our esteemed colleague commenter. We’ve already read from others that SC can be applied to the EF Mass and is being done so in order to have actual participation of the congregation in verbal and sung responses. One could also envision lay readers for the Liturgy of the Word even with the EF’s lectionary. Thus the participation of the faithful in this fashion would show forth the theology of ecclesiology of the Council.
    Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the following in 1999:
    “I wish to comment on that what concerns the unity of the Roman rite. This unity is not threatened by small communities using the indult, who are often treated as lepers, as people doing something indecent, even immoral. No, the unity of the Roman rite is threatened by the wild creativity, often encouraged by liturgists (in Germany, for instance, there is propaganda for the project Missale 2000, which presumes that the Missal of Paul VI has already been superseded). I repeat that which was said in my speech: the difference between the Missal of 1962 and the Mass faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI is much smaller than the difference between the various, so-called ”creative” applications of the Missal of Paul VI. In this situation, the presence of the earlier Missal may become a bulwark against the numerous alterations of the liturgy and thus act as a support of the authentic reform. To oppose the Indult of 1984 (1988) in the name of the unity of the Roman rite, is – in my experience – an attitude far removed from reality. Besides, I am sorry that you did not perceive in my speech the invitation to the ”traditionalists” to be open to the Council and to reconcile themselves to it in the hope of overcoming one day the split between the two Missals.”

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #6:

      I’m afraid that Ratzinger was deluding himself. I do not know of anyone in an English-speaking country who was calling for another Roman Missal, subsequent to and different from the Missal of Paul VI. However, I do know of many liturgists, including myself, who have commented that the Missal of Paul Vi did not fulfil everything that the Council Fathers asked for both during the Council and after it, and that one day we will need to update/tweak/whatever you want to call it the Missal of Paul VI to take into account those areas where the work of the Council is still left undone. I look at the area of the Presentation of the Gifts as just one very obvious example where the postconciliar reforms did not go far enough. There are others.

      In other words, the Missal of Paul VI was in closer continuity to what preceded it than what the Council Fathers actually mandated. Go and tell that to the “reform of the reform” boys.

      Reply
      1. Father Allan J. McDonald

        @Paul Inwood – comment #7:
        Not withstanding Cardinal Ratzinger’s remarks, for the life of me apart from vague terms on actual participation, some vernacular, noble simplicity and more Scripture, I think you are deluding yourself claiming that SC called for more radical revisions–that developed post council although liturgical theologians may have had a hankering for what you write prior to the Council and then pulled out all stops to bring it about post council considering the VII documents are vague and quite conservative in this regard.

      2. Bill deHaas

        @Father Allan J. McDonald – comment #8:
        Really – “…for the life of me apart from vague terms, etc. and you are deluding yourself claiming that SC called for more radical revisions, etc.”

        Your comment says it all – guess you never studied the notes of Consilium (all published – more than 75+) that details the discussions, decisions, and various reforms/modifications that were considered. Read any of the good liturgical histories – Congar, Bugnini, etc. Even a quick overview of Bugnini highlights what Paul Inwood has said.

        Instead, we get your usual well worn opinion, again – thus, “…liturgical theologians may have had a *hankering* prior to and then pulled out all stops post council”….and this inaccurate opinion leads to another well worn mantra – *VII documents are vague and quite conservative* which gets to Jonathan’s earlier post about having it both ways to justify your own *cafeteria style* opinions.

        Any good history of Vatican II definitely does not claim that the documents were vage or even quite conservative. Again, you are just shooting from the hip and missing the side of the barn.

        Try again but please; at least use some type of documentation beyond opinion, quoting Ratzinger/B16 to fit your alternate universe, Fr. Z, or your *conspiracy theories* (pulling out all stops, vague terms)

  6. Jeffrey Pinyan

    I’ll be bluntly honest: the more Extraordinary Form Masses I attend, the more I understand Sacrosanctum Concilium, the more I see what why the bishops believed the liturgy needed significant reform and restoration. For example, things that were duplicated, like the celebrant’s silent recitation of prayers (e.g. Gloria) during the choir and congregation’s singing of them.

    Even with my understanding of the liturgy, its order, and its elements, I find myself longing to feel like an actual participant in the liturgy than a spectator of it.

    Maybe I just have not immersed myself in the EF enough, but I have a feeling it’s more complicated than that.

    Reply
  7. Jim McKay

    So what is “unchangeable”?

    I think it is love, hope and faith, the Gospel rather than the gospels. Everything else is structured to allow the expression and growth of these three that last. The underlying image is that of 1 Cor 11-13, the Body of Christ with gifts and ministries but only these three things that last.

    But I have no idea if that is a fair reading.

    Reply
  8. Alan Griffiths

    If I seem to be erring on the side of critique of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Mass, then please forgive me.

    I regularly celebrate Mass – chanted – in the Extraordinary Form, and it seems to me to have an elegance and an economy that I don’t see so much in the Ordinary Form.

    Particularly, I note this in that section of the rite between the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and the Invitation to Holy Communion.

    In the Ordinary Form we have a chain of prayers – ‘Libera nos,’ and ‘Domine Jesu Christe’ – recited out loud. In the Extraordinary Form they are recited quietly.

    I can’t see that these prayers add much to the Eucharistic Prayer. They seem to me to place too great a distance between ‘Eucharistia’ and ‘Communio.’ Also, recited out loud, they deprive the congregation of some moments of silence before receiving Communion.

    The sequence of Canon, Lord’s Prayer, Agnus Dei, Pax and ‘Ecce Agnus Dei’ seems to me more elegant, more action-centred and less overloaded with words than the equivalent moments of the Ordinary Form.

    In the light of the recent musings of the Pope on moving the Pax to a position before the Eucharistic Prayer, it seems to me that Paul Inwood is right. We may not have seen the end of the development process of the Ordinary Form.

    Reply
    1. John Ainslie

      @Alan Griffiths – comment #12:
      You have a point, Alan. Like Paul Inwood, I see some of OF as a bit of a compromise – keep as much of the existing rite as possible, but also sort it out. The Communion Rite (up to the ‘Domine non sum dignus’) was certainly a jumble, as Jungmann’s analysis shows. Detaching the Sign of Peace and putting it back where it was centuries ago has not been entirely successful, but maybe no one had the courage to do in the 1960s what Pope Benedict suggested in ‘Sacramentum Caritatis’ and transfer it to precede the Preparation of the Gifts. The biggest advantage of this would be to maintain everyone’s attention on the altar for the Fraction. The first ‘Domine Jesu Christe’ prayer, being an introduction to the Sign of Peace, would be removed, which would simplify the Communion Rite.

      Reply
  9. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    “The first sentence of art. 21 makes it clear that the Council Fathers’ intention in undertaking a reform/restoration/renewal of the Liturgy was ultimately for pastoral purposes: so that the faithful might more deeply avail themselves of the divine life offered them through the liturgy.”
    At the time of the Council the number of Catholics participating in the so-call non-participative Mass was much higher than the number of Catholics participating in the post-Vatican II participative Mass. So the Council’s vision in terms of its pastoral purposes have been thwarted or only partially realized for those who participate with their presence at Mass on Sunday.
    So, one can legitimately question pastoral solutions proposed even by an ecumenical council.
    There are many ways to revise the Mass to accomplish the pastoral purposes of the Council. And the Ordinary Form of the Mass can be celebrated in continuity with the Missal that is the basis of its reform without changing the Ordinary Form’s order or ethos. Is there a problem with that?
    But apart from that, reading the liturgical signs of the times does not indicate that we’re going in the direction of Paul Inwood’s vision of the Mass but rather in the direction of the reform of the reform and not only of the Mass but of the life of the Church and its, I mean, her mission.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #13:
      “There are many ways to revise the Mass to accomplish the pastoral purposes of the Council.”

      And yet, you continue to promote and celebrate the unrevised rite, which was clearly the preference of less than one percent of conciliar bishops.

      There indeed many ways to revise and renew poor liturgy into good and fruitful. Yet many Catholics have convinced themselves that peripheral tinkering is the best solution.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #14:
        Now, let me see, I also encouraged people in my previous parish who wanted to go to the Eastern Rite Liturgy on Sunday to do so if they desired, which has led that little Byzantine parish to have about 70 families today, most of whom are not Byzantine, but Latin Rite. In my own parish, we have about 70 families who appreciate having the EF Mass once a month on Sunday, for special occasions and each Tuesday as a low Mass. Considering that Vatican II was a pastoral council that embraced other Christian communions, other religions and those with none, I think we can be pastoral enough to embrace those who would like an exclusive “unrevised” Liturgy, after all it does offer them God’s love, salvation and mission in the world–to know, love and serve Christ in this life and be happy forever with Him in heaven.

  10. Jack Wayne

    Jeffrey Pinyan : I’ll be bluntly honest: the more Extraordinary Form Masses I attend, the more I understand Sacrosanctum Concilium, the more I see what why the bishops believed the liturgy needed significant reform and restoration. For example, things that were duplicated, like the celebrant’s silent recitation of prayers (e.g. Gloria) during the choir and congregation’s singing of them. Even with my understanding of the liturgy, its order, and its elements, I find myself longing to feel like an actual participant in the liturgy than a spectator of it. Maybe I just have not immersed myself in the EF enough, but I have a feeling it’s more complicated than that.

    I think you do have to immerse yourself quite a bit in the EF to feel at home. I feel like it is quite natural to me when I attend, but then it has been my primary form of Mass for around four years now. It probably doesn’t help that, while I like the new translation of the OF, I still haven’t attended it enough to actually know my part well and now feel more like a visitor when I attend.

    I think the EF does need reform. However, the OF falls short and the EF will have to do in its “unrevised” form for now.

    Reply
  11. Fr. Jack Feehily

    The Tridentine Rite (or whatever you prefer to call it) reflected a sacramental theology in which the focus was almost exclusively on the consecration of the elements and their consumption by the priest. This focus went hand in hand with the belief that the real presence of Christ was confined to the consecrated elements. From that perspective, there doesn’t need to be anyone else present, save for perhaps a server. Mass, in fact, was very often celebrated without a congregation. With no one present with whom to exchange the kiss of peace it was suppressed. In solemn high masses, the kiss was retained but only among the ordained celebrants.
    The sacramental theology of the Novus Ordo Missae speaks of the real presence of Christ in the presiding bishop/priest; in the Word proclaimed; in the assembled worshippers; and, par excellence, in the consecrated elements. To invite the people to share with one another a sign of Christ’s peace is to acknowledge that taking one’s attention off the altar is not the same as taking one’s attention off of Christ truly present in the midst of the assembly. The manner with which that is done can make the difference between a free for all and a quiet and reverent exchange. But doing so may require a slight change of the words in black spoken by the deacon. From “Let us offer each other the sign of peace” to “With grace and reverence let us offer each other the sign of peace.”
    What follows is the rite more descriptively known as the breaking of the bread which is accompanied by the Lamb of God. This should involve a large enough “loaf” that can be broken into many pieces that can be distributed among the vessels from which the people with receive Holy Communion.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      @Fr. Jack Feehily – comment #18:
      Don’t disagree with anything except to say that your proper understanding of the theology of the Mass or the expansion of that theology can very easily be applied to the Tridentine Mass in the modern day–it’s a living reality in 2012 and can be understood in the same way and should be. I have no problem describing the EF Mass or the OF Mass as you have done.

      Cardinal Ratzinger said the following in 1998 to traditionalists:
      “…Fortunately however, there is also a certain disenchantment with an all too banal rationalism, and with the pragmatism of certain liturgists, whether they be theorists or practitioners, and one can note a return to mystery, to adoration and to the sacred, and to the cosmic and eschatological character of the liturgy, as evidenced in the 1996 “Oxford Declaration on the Liturgy”. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the celebration of the old liturgy had strayed too far into a private individualism, and that communication between priest and people was insufficient. I have great respect for our forefathers who at Low Mass said the “Prayers during Mass” contained in their prayer books, but certainly one cannot consider that as the ideal of liturgical celebration! Perhaps these reductionist forms of celebration are the real reason that the disappearance of the old liturgical books was of no importance in many countries and caused no sorrow. One was never in contact with the liturgy itself. On the other hand, in those places where the Liturgical Movement had created a certain love for the liturgy, where the Movement had anticipated the essential ideas of the Council, such as for example, the prayerful participation of all in the liturgical action, it was those places where there was all the more distress when confronted with a liturgical reform undertaken too hastily and often limited to externals. Where the Liturgical Movement had never existed, the reform initially raised no problems. The problems only appeared in a sporadic fashion, when unchecked creativity caused the sense of the sacred mystery to disappear…”

      Reply
  12. Jordan Zarembo

    When considering plena, actuosa et communitatis propria celebratione (“full, active, and proper celebration of a community”), it’s important to consider the way in which non-liturgical media is “passive” or “active”. The Internet provides many forms of active or bidirectional interaction with others, but many persons (including myself) find that speaking to another person face-to-face is different than email or videoconferencing.

    A significant question to ask about the EF concerns its incongruity with most forms of media persons use today. Some have said that the Extraordinary Form is like opera. This is a very keen observation. In both the EF and European opera, there is no expectation that representatives of the audience (in the case of the EF, congregation) will be allowed onto the stage and participate in the opera. At no time were opera audiences expected to make responses appropriate to the libretto or music (this did not stop jeering or talking through the performance, however).

    The OF provides a level of participation conditioned on a bidirectional, “active” level, with laypersons and clergy expected to participate interactively in the liturgy. In a world where increasingly interpersonal social media interaction is commonplace and even required, the OF provides a level of activity which (for many) enhances prayer.

    If the EF is a liturgy for a bygone, non-interactive-media-saturated time, why does it persist and even grow in certain places? The answer, I think, is quite simple: not all persons are comfortable with a high level of liturgical interactivity. I certainly am not, and find the “distance” between me and the sanctuary in the EF comforting. EF adherents (including myself) still must take a hard look at why the reformed liturgy is idoneus (suitable) for our age. The OF harmonizes well with the current revolution in human interaction and cooperation.

    Reply
  13. Jim Pauwels

    “The answer, I think, is quite simple: not all persons are comfortable with a high level of liturgical interactivity.”

    Speaking as someone who has spent a big chunk of his adult life trying to think of ways to induce people who don’t sing at liturgy to sing, I believe there is a lot of truth to this.

    It was brought home to me about fifteen years ago, at a mass in the Florida resort community where my wife and I vacationing. There was an organist, but that congregation recited all the people’s parts: the Gloria, the Alleluia, the Sanctus, the Amen – everything. Participation by the people was full and energetic. If a lesson can be drawn from a single mass at a single place and time, the lesson I drew is that it is not participation per se, it is sung participation that many people are reluctant to engage in. I suppose the same thing can be observed in any parish in which the usual ordinary parts are sung but the Our Father is spoken; the participation in the latter is noticeably greater.

    Please don’t interpret this comment as a plea for less music. Nothing pleases me more than heartfelt and full-throated sung prayer.

    Reply
    1. Alan Griffiths

      @Jim Pauwels – comment #21:
      That is a well-observed point.

      Speaking engages you, but for yourself, privately. This may be as far as many RC’s are ready to go. Singing engages you at another level, one that must take into account that others are singing with you. The rules for common prayer and common chant are the same: be aware of the people around you. Be at one with the people around you. That’s why chant is the natural articulation of the Sacred Liturgy throughout the Churches that practise it.

      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