Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 23

Having indicated the levels of authority under with reform/restoration/renewal of the Church’s liturgy is to take place, the Council Fathers now consider the general norms for the process by which it is to take place.

Vatican Website translation:

23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.

Latin text:

23. Ut sana traditio retineatur et tamen via legitimae progressioni aperiatur, de singulis Liturgiae partibus recognoscendis accurata investigatio theologica, historica, pastoralis semper praecedat. Insuper considerentur cum leges generales structurae et mentis Liturgiae, tum experientia ex recentiore instauratione liturgica et ex indultis passim concessis promanans. Innovationes, demum, ne fiant nisi vera et certa utilitas Ecclesiae id exigat, et adhibita cautela ut novae formae ex formis iam exstantibus organice quodammodo crescant.
Caveatur etiam, in quantum fieri potest, ne notabiles differentiae rituum inter finitimas regiones habeantur.

Slavishly literal translation:

23. So that healthy tradition be retained and nevertheless a way of lawful progress be opened, an accurate theological, historical, and pastoral investigation concerning each part of the Liturgy to be examined-and-revised must always take place first. Moreover both the general laws of the structure and mentality of the Liturgy as well as the experience gained from more recent liturgical reform/restoration/renewal and from indults granted here and there should be considered. Precisely there should be no innovations created unless the true and certain need of the Church should require it, and caution exhibited that new forms should grow organically in some way from those forms already existing.

Also care should be taken, insofar as it is possible to do so, lest notable differences of rites are held among adjoining regions.

 

The first part of the first sentence holds up a goal for this process: that healthy liturgical tradition be respected and fostered (which immediately raises the questions of whether or not unhealthy liturgical traditions may have distorted the Church’s common prayer, who is to identify them, and what criteria are used in making that determination) while lawful progress in enriching liturgical tradition proceed (which immediately raises the question of what progress in liturgical tradition is, who is to identify it, and what criteria are used in making that determination.)

The second part of the first sentence and the second sentence detail three general areas in which liturgical scholarship is to serve the process of liturgical reform/restoration/renewal. It should be noted that this scholarship was to take into account the lived experience of liturgical reforms (such as the changes in the celebration of Holy Week dating to the 1950s) as well as more theoretical concerns. Pray Tell readers might want to evaluate from a distance of half a century the characteristics and adequacy of the theological, historical, and pastoral scholarship grounding the work of the curial entities responsible for the reform of the liturgical books after Vatican II. What further theological, historical, and pastoral scholarship needs to be taken into account for future liturgical reform/restoration/renewal?

The third sentence sounds a note of caution: that genuine ecclesial need dictate any innovations made in the received liturgical texts and rites and that these innovations grow “organically” from earlier texts and rites. These assertions again raise questions: how would genuine ecclesial need for changes in liturgical texts and rites be determined, who would be responsible for making that determination, what criteria would be used, how would “organic” connection with previous texts and rites be demonstrated, who would make that determination, and what criteria would be used?

The final sentence asserts that the proposed revised texts and rites be part of a liturgical “family” able to be recognized by worshipers in adjacent regions.

It seems to me that much of the disagreement expressed by Pray, Tell commentators stems from differing perceptions of article 23. I look forward to seeing if we can come to some consensus on its meaning as the Council Fathers intended it and on what guidance it might offer for present and future liturgical 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

15 responses to “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 23”

  1. Paul Inwood

    I have always seen this paragraph as symptomatic of the fact that SC, like most Vatican documents (Liturgiam authenticam being a conspicuous exception), was written by a committee.

    In para 1 we have had “The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”

    In para 3, “Wherefore the sacred Council judges that the following principles concerning the promotion and reform of the liturgy should be called to mind, and that practical norms should be established.
    Among these principles and norms there are some which can and should be applied both to the Roman rite and also to all the other rites. The practical norms which follow, however, should be taken as applying only to the Roman rite, except for those which, in the very nature of things, affect other rites as well.”

    In para 14, “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else.”

    And especially in para 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.”

    This is a radical programme for change: reform, restoration, renewal.

    Ctd in next box

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      @Paul Inwood – comment #1:

      And then we have para 23, which could be the cautious, if not dissenting, members of the committee saying “Hang on. Not so fast. Be sure you know what you’re doing, and how you’re doing it.” Or, it could be that the drafters of this text inserted this paragraph in order to reassure those Council Fathers such as Lefebvre (who in the end voted against anyway) that this was not just anarchy but would be organic development from what had gone before (as indeed the Holy Week reforms of the 1950s were in continuity with the past).

      Certainly the sentence beginning “There must be no innovations unless….” would be evidence of this caution.

      Looking back over 50 years, I think it is possible to say that there were in fact no innovations, that what was done was certainly a restoration and not a rupture, although those who dislike change would not agree with that.

      As for what remains to be done, 50 years of further scholarship has certainly thrown up the possibility of deepening and progressing the reform, rather than reforming it. We now know considerably more than we did then, rather in the same way that the pioneers of the 19th-20th centuries knew considerably more than their forebears in, say, the 16th century, at the time of Quo primum.

      That is why the “reform of the reform” movement is a disturbing diversion from where the major thrust of the work ought to be placed. We are spending so much time defending what took place in the 1960s and 1970s against the desires of those who want to take it back to the 1950s and beyond that there is little or no time for doing the work that we should be engaged in to prepare for the next 50 years. Work on ongoing liturgical reform is now limited to the academic sphere instead of being out there on the ground.

      Reply
  2. Jack Wayne

    Paul Inwood : @Paul Inwood – comment #1: That is why the “reform of the reform” movement is a disturbing diversion from where the major thrust of the work ought to be placed. We are spending so much time defending what took place in the 1960s and 1970s against the desires of those who want to take it back to the 1950s and beyond that there is little or no time for doing the work that we should be engaged in to prepare for the next 50 years. Work on ongoing liturgical reform is now limited to the academic sphere instead of being out there on the ground.

    Perhaps those on the side of the reform got themselves into the situation of having to constantly defend themselves. You have to have extraordinary reasons for changes as extensive as took place in the 60s and 70s – especially if you are going to forever restrict and exclude traditional practices as if they are bad. “Either/or” requires more defending than “both/and” and the post Vatican II reform was very “either/or” regardless of how they saw themselves.

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      @Jack Wayne – comment #3:

      You have to have extraordinary reasons for changes as extensive as took place in the 60s and 70s

      Not so extraordinary, but certainly substantive:

      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. (para 21)

      The Council Fathers were saying very clearly here, as in the other paragraphs I quoted, that all was far from well with the Church’s liturgy and that it needed to be reformed if it was to remain relevant. So reformed it was and, as with all previous reforms, the previous usage was abrogated in order to promote uniformity of practice (which we have now lost, alas) and to encourage people to move on. While I grew up with the preconciliar rite and much appreciate the ethos of it, I think that to cling to the past is to remain stuck in a time-warp. It’s not a very good analogy, but I feel that those who reject the reforms of Vatican II are in a similar situation to the Amish people, who also have been unable to move on beyond a particular point in time.

      The reason the changes were perceived as extensive, incidentally, was because the liturgy had been largely in the deep freeze for the previous 400 years. If Pius V had not done what he did, and if the liturgy had been allowed to continue to develop naturally over those centuries, it would not have been quite such a shock when Vatican II made up for lost time in a short space of time. That, for me, is why those who accuse the reforms of being a rupture are incorrect. It only felt like a rupture because we experienced 400-years’-worth of reform all in one go, and because scholarship had taken us much further in 100 years than the scholarship of all the preceding centuries put together.

      I’m fond of saying that Pius V and Trent effectively put not only the liturgy but the entire life of the Church into the deep freeze. When Vatican II microwaved it, it was bound to be a shock for some, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have happened.

      Reply
      1. Jack Wayne

        @Paul Inwood – comment #4:
        Quoting council documents requesting change is not a defense of what took place in the 60s and 70s, unless you feel that any change is justified regardless of value because the council wanted change (i.e. change for the sake of change).

        The comparison to the Amish isn’t a very good one. One can be completely modern – even liberal or progressive – and prefer traditional liturgy.

        As I said before – you offer a very “either/or” view of Catholic liturgy, and that demands an enormous amount of prolonged apologetics if moving ever further is what you want. Otherwise, you’ll just have to accept liturgical diversity and that not everyone wants to worship the way you prefer them to, or finds it as relevant as you do.

        I should put my cards on the table and say that I really don’t care if some people want to take the liturgy into a very different and new direction provided they don’t toy with validity and reverence, destroy historical Church interiors, or force everyone else to endure their liturgical preferences. I’m a fan of “unity not uniformity.” It’s better to have multiple relevant expressions of worship, IMO.

  3. Bill deHaas

    Thanks, Paul….as you say: “…..That is why the “reform of the reform” movement is a disturbing diversion from where the major thrust of the work ought to be placed. We are spending so much time defending what took place in the 1960s and 1970s against the desires of those who want to take it back to the 1950s…..”

    Interesting statement…..Massimo Faggioli agrees and repeats your statement about *playing defense*. In his new book, *True Reform: Liturgy & Ecclesiology in SC* he posits a different approach to the internal hermeneutical debates of B16. He argues that Vatican II reformed and resourced theology and that SC was the initial *theological* document that is connected to all other VII statements and is a pattern/template for all of those theological documents. Thus, for Faggioli, it is a mistake to limit SC to liturgy only – for him, liturgy expresses theology – it is always lex orandi, lex credendi. (thus, he finds the two forms of one rite to be a theological mistake that goes well beyond temporary, pastoral solutions) Thus, VII’s core theological principles of pastoral bearing; connection between liturgy and ecclesiology; Church as sacrament; & history of salvation are expressed in SC – it is the *crossroads of Vatican II*. Given this, he argues that the ROTR is *dangerous* because it attempts to deal with liturgy as separate – he states: “That is why the rejection of the liturgical reform is not driven by the rejection of the *abuses* of the postconciliar years; it seems more and more the forefront of an overall rejection of the theology of VII.” For Faggioli, VII’s choice to leave behind Paul V/Trent contradicts the ROTR’s theological relativism; efforts to minimize the aggiornamento of VII – ecumenism, Jewish dialogue, social justice commitments. For him, undoing the liturgical reform of VII leads to the dismantling of the VII Church.

    A good example of this dynamic from an earlier post about Cdl Marx and women’s ordination from Allan:

    “However, times changed and the discussion that we once had and with great gusto has moved in a new direction, one of continuity with how we understand the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, the nature of the Risen and Glorified Christ as both High Priest and Bridegroom. Within this theology of continuity the implications of this for the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the sacramental character of the “corporality” of the “substance” used (the man) to show for the hidden reality of the Glorified and Risen Christ who is still the High Priest and Bridegroom of the Church, through the sign of the ordained man, although veiled, shows Christ the High Priest and Bridegroom forth especially in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and which also shows forth His Bride at the same time.”

    What you see in this quote is an example of ROTR ideas that appeal and restate pre-conciliar theology – it gets to Faggioli’s opinion that ROTR proponents (e.g. *However, times have changed and the discussion has moved in a new direction*), at the core, reject VII theology –e.g. language from Trent (substance) (hidden reality, veiled) (Holy Sacrifice – with no mention of VII statements about church as sacrament, eucharist, People of God, presbyter, ministry, etc.)

    Reply
  4. Bill deHaas

    Fr. Michael – to your directive in the last paragraph and quoting from M. Faggioli’s True Reform. He posits that article 23 underlines his idea of *rapprochment* & echoes the ecclesiology of SC – thus, the eucharist is the center of the community’s sacramental action and fosters active participation with accessible rites using all five senses; this ecclesiology recenters the local church around their bishop and the local episcopal conference. Thus, it reinforces that liturgical decisions are local and collegial.
    The paragraphs’ references to adaptation and innovation is connected to the local bishop (corrects the Vatican I over-emphasis on papal authority/hierarchy) and an awareness that liturgy happens in the local community presided over by a local bishop in communion with the bishop of Rome and the people of God. Thus, he tries to avoid over-reading article 23 as specfic to rubrics & liturgy only (separate from ecclesiology) rather it reinforces SC’s theology that the church is the sacrament of unity; that eucharist is a communal action not just the action of a priest – it declericalizes the ecclesiology. (yes, there are still roles/ministries).

    Reply
  5. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    It seems that all the competent authorities reformed the Mass and it continues to be reformed even prior to the latest translation, there were adjustments made to the Roman Missal. To be honest, the reform of the reform in my mind simply means implementing the reformed missal as it is allowed with the rich variety of chants that can be used for the Mass itself, either facing the congregation or ad orientem, Latin or vernacular or a combination of both, kneeling for Holy Communion or standing (Lutherans have it right in the photos on another post). I think the biggest criticism of the past 50 years is a narrowing of options and not permitting what is clearly allowed. I think Pope Benedict has helped in that critique and that we don’t need the same old, same old but a fresh approach to reform in continuity based not only on SC but the lived experiences for better or worse of the last half century.

    Reply
    1. Bill deHaas

      @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #8:
      That is Faggioli’s point – *competent authorities*; for his approach, SC laid out episcopal conferences.

      But the ROTR, JPII, B16 have diminshed or ignored SC’s collegiality (see Fr. Michael and Rita’s points above) to reignite debates about Vatican II’s meaning and impact by unilaterally allowing and expanding an abrogated Western Rite that, in many cases, ignores the council’s reforms and connection of the liturgy to both theology and ecclesiology. (sorry, it is not just about the *rich variety of, etc….*) – in fact, the council decided that much of what you cite were historical accretions that had outlived their time and could not achieve the council’s desire for full, active participation and a reformed sacramental theological understandiing.

      As Paul Inwood suggests above – yes, there has been a *narrowing of options* but not in the way you cite here. Fact, if we understand lex orandi, lex credendi, then two forms of the one rite makes little theological, liturgical, sacramental, or theological senses. (You are attempting to relegate SC to a merely liturgical document – it is not.) That is the lived experience of 95% of catholics; it was a fresh approach per the council fathers, and it was reform in continuity. The recent papal initiatives – well, is that the only competent authorities? Didn’t VII reform the over-centralization and hierarchical understanding of Vatican I? And the *continues to be reformed right up to the latest translation* – only if you believe that competent authorities – papacy/curia only.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        @Bill deHaas – comment #10:
        The Holy Spirit can’t be boxed in either by church documents or our interpretation of them. What is happening now is very charismatic and in the best sense of the word. We’ll have to deal with it.

      2. Todd Flowerday

        @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #11:
        Wow. That’s some admission. It works on the Swiss abbot thread as well as the discussion on ordained ministry.

      3. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #12:
        While there are a variety of ways the Holy See approves bishops in both the Latin Rite and Eastern Rite, I don’t see too much of what is being proposed for the modern Latin Rite today actually happening anywhere especially as it regards the Swiss Bishop’s sentiments, not that it won’t happen at some future time. That is not true of liturgical reform in continuity. Much is happening and from the highest to the lowest places, the lowest being Macon, Georgia.

      4. Bill deHaas

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #12:
        Sounds like we have adopted the *spirit of the council* approach only revamped it – now it is the *spirit of the reform of the reform in continuity*, etc., etc. (the usual mantra and circular reasoning)

        Notice – no response to *competent authority*; changing the subject; dismissing the Swiss suggestions because there is little hope that this will happen (same tactic we at times suggest about the EF – less than 3% of worldwide catholics; almost no impact on 2/3rd’s of catholics in Asia, Africa, South/Latin America).

        *Much is happening* – only in an alternative universe. Been waiting for the Macon blog to say something about the other Macon idol – Honey Boo-Boo and family.

      5. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        @Bill deHaas – comment #14:
        Bill, I was far from dismissing the good Swiss suggestions as you all them, but rather acknowledging I haven’t seen any sign of them yet, although who knows what the future will bring. However, in this country and many others, there are signs of the reform of the reform in continuity as well as its spirit from high to low places.
        As for Macon’s so-called idol, I think Bill you are watching way too much TV and shouldn’t be helping this show have such high ratings as it does seem to me to be child exploitation.

  6. Fr. Jan Michael Joncas

    It may be helpful at this point to recall Rita Ferrone’s excellent comment on article 22 about how the various “competent authorities” have interacted in the reform of the Roman Rite liturgy over the last 50 years. The competent authorities of the Apostolic See (meaning, I would presume, the various incarnations of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Consilium) REVISED the Latin editiones typicae of the various Roman Rite liturgies. These editiones typicae were then given to the competent territorial authorities (meaning, I would presume, bishops conferences) for translation and adaptation to the culture in which these texts would be prayed. (Admittedly English-speaking bishops conferences banded together even before Vatican II had concluded to produce a “mixed commission” to assist in this work — ICEL — but ultimately the REVISION of the VERNACULAR liturgical books was the responsibility of the territorial bishops conference with oversight by the Apostolic See.) Thus the USA bishops conference could insert into our vernacular version of the Roman Missal a Mass formulary for a July Fourth Independence Day celebration which has no counterpart in the Missale Romanum 1970/1975/2002/2008. This REVISION of the editiones typicae AND of the vernacular editions (books) is, I think, intended to be in service to the REFORM of Roman Rite worship (the liturgical action of the Church) which, I think, is intended to be in service to the RENEWAL of Roman Catholic Church life in service to the Church’s mission in the world. It may be helpful in the light of article 23 to consider how on-going theological, historical and pastoral scholarship as well as what we learn from pastoral practice might continue to serve any future REVISIONS of our liturgical books and the on-going REFORM of Roman Rite worship and RENEWAL of Roman Catholic Church life.

    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