Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 53

Vatican website translation:

53. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, “the common prayer” or “the prayer of the faithful.” By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world. (39) Cf. 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

Latin text:

53. ”Oratio communis” seu “fidelium”, post Evangelium et homiliam, praesertim diebus dominicis et festis de praecepto, restituatur, ut, populo eam participante, obsecrationes fiant pro sancta Ecclesia, pro iis qui nos in potestate regunt, pro iis qui variis premuntur necessitatibus, ac pro omnibus hominibus totiusque mundi salute (39) Cf. 1Tim 2,1-2.

Slavishly literal translation (kindness of Jonathan Day):

53. “The common prayer”, or that “of the faithful”, after the Gospel and the homily, is to be restored, especially on Sundays and feasts of precept; so that, with the participation of the people in it [in the prayer], intercessions will be made for the holy Church, for those who guide us through their authority [who rule over us in power], for those oppressed with various difficulties, and for all humankind and for the salvation of all the world. (39) Cf. 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

In art. 50 the Council Fathers decreed that those elements of the [Roman Rite] Order of Mass that “had suffered the injuries of time” were to be restored to “the original standard of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.” Art. 53 provides an example of such a restoration: the “Common Prayer” or “Prayer of the Faithful.” An ancient form of intercessory prayer in the Roman Rite had maintained itself in the solemn intercessions in use on Good Friday, but the litanic form to which Roman Rite Catholics have now grown accustomed had fallen out of use in the Roman Rite long before the codification of the Ordo Missae after the Council of Trent.

This article both determines the place for the Prayer of the Faithful (as part of the Liturgy of the Word after the Gospel and homily) and the content of its intercessions (for the Church, for those governing humanity, for those in any need, for all humanity, and for the world’s salvation). Note that this is seen as an exercise of the baptismal priesthood, interceding first ad intra (Church) and then ad extra (the other categories) attention. The “Common Prayer” is not presented as a time for praise and thanksgiving, for consciousness-raising or for lamentation; rather it is a time of petition for the needs of the Church and intercession for the needs of the world. These requests also seem quite general and universal in scope.

Pray Tell readers may wish to discuss 1) how the Prayer of the Faithful has developed in pastoral practice over the last five decades; 2) how the Common Prayer is distinguished from the intercessory material in the Eucharistic Prayer; 3) what catechesis and mystagogy on the Common Prayer might be useful; 4) how the Prayer of the Faithful might change based on the situation (i.e., for Sunday parish celebrations, for weekday celebrations, on retreat; at weddings or funerals; etc.); 5) how music may help or hinder full, conscious and active participation in the Common Prayer.

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 53”

  1. Fr. Jack Feehily

    This article strongly reinforces the role of the assembly as the subject of worship. Time and time again we have to contend with claims that the NO overemphasizes the “horizontal” dimension of worship at the expense of the “vertical” dimension. As the Brits might say, this is rubbish put forth by those who largely reject the development of ecclesiology reflected in SC and the other documents of VII. A principal reason for reforming the Roman Rite was that it almost entirely omitted the essential role of the priestly identity of the baptized. The old rite made it appear that the congregation was an add on that could be readily dispensed with. Does anyone remember the proliferation of private Masses? More masses meant more souls rescued from Purgatory and more stipends to support the priests. The old rite made it appear that there is only one priesthood and that it is conferred strictly on males in Holy Orders. The restoration of the Universal Prayer, however inadequately implemented, makes it clear that Mass isn’t all about the parish priest praying on our behalf, but of Christ, the High Priest, ever interceding before the Throne of Grace through the members of his Body–the ordained and the baptized.

    Reply
  2. Matt Connolly

    I’d like to ask about the order of the petitions. When I visit a church, it seems to me that I can read the obedience level of the priests by the petitions. If we are being highly obedient, then the first petition is for the church hierarchy, and the second is for the government. Then those oppressed, mankind and maybe a woman or two, and then the world. The order is just what is presented here, and I’ve been told that was the “proper” order of the prayers. I’ve seen this in more than a few Masses. Is there anywhere else where the church has suggested or decreed this order? Or, in turn, is this all there is? If so, it seems like a lot of close-marching for very little gain.

    Reply
    1. Jeff Rice

      @Matt Connolly – comment #2:
      The order in paragraph 70 of the GIRM is a) for the needs of the Church; b) for public authorities and the salvation of the whole world; c) for those burdened by any kind of difficulty; d) for the local community. It provides that for a particular celebration “the series of intentions may be concerned more closely with the particular occasion.”

      Reply
    2. Jonathan Day

      @Matt Connolly – comment #2:
      “The first petition is for the church hierarchy” — I hope it is for the Church, writ large, clerical and lay. The text reads pro sancta Ecclesia, which certainly didn’t connote “the hierarchy” to the Council fathers.

      “the second is for the government” — again, this is really for all who direct our affairs; I would include business and civic leaders in this.

      “mankind and maybe a woman or two” — do those “obedient” parishes frame it this way? If so they aren’t very obedient to the teaching of the Council.

      Reply
      1. Matt Connolly

        @Jonathan Day – comment #4:
        Jonathan, “mankind and maybe a woman or two” is just me being snarky. Sorry about that. However, it still strikes me that what looks like an innocent suggested list has become a demanded structure, an offense to the Almighty if not closely followed. For me, this little list is one of the major problems of the church. As a pew person, those in charge don’t even trust me to pray. “Here’s your list, son, in just the right order. Y’all assent to this when I tell you to and God and everybody will be happy.”

        Now I know some of us crave this kind of ordering and find it life-giving. That’s not for me to say. But to make this list any more than a suggestion smacks of infantilizing the laity.

      2. Jordan Zarembo

        @Jonathan Day – comment #4:

        Jonathan: “the second is for the government” — again, this is really for all who direct our affairs; I would include business and civic leaders in this.

        Jonathan, I agree with you that the petitions should mention leaders of government, legislators, and justices. This is especially true in times of national pride in places where monarchs reign but not rule (e.g. recent birth of the Prince of Cambridge). However, in a certain republic where the head of state is also the head of government, for it’s probably best to just say “The President, Congress, and all of our elected representatives”, without naming any one person specifically. Discretion is paramount, unless discord is sown in the assembly.

        Matt Connolly [July 22, 2013 – 7:25 pm]: […] mankind and maybe a woman or two, and then the world. [my ellipsis]

        I was going to post my own snark-back on your comment. I apologize.

      3. Paul Inwood

        @Jonathan Day – comment #4:

        Just agreeing with Jonathan. I often hear people announcing a petition for the Church and then praying for the Pope and the bishops. They aren’t the Church, just a (small) part of it.

  3. Jordan Zarembo

    5) how music may help or hinder full, conscious and active participation in the Common Prayer.

    Perhaps some celebrations of the OF, and especially solemnities and feasts, could include a recto tono singing of the petitions by a deacon or layperson as circumstances dictate. The congregation could respond with a more embellished, but brief and easily memorizable, chant. The Vatican practice of including a sung response to the petitions such as Domine, exaudi nos or similar comes to my mind. Certainly the vernacular could be used instead or in addition, e.g. “Lord, hear our prayer”.

    off topic question: as is well known, the Tridentine liturgy reduces the Prayer of the Faithful to a greeting and oremus at the start of the offertory. Did this liturgical remnant once serve as a prompt for the deacon to read or chant the intercessions?

    Reply
  4. Jack Rakosky

    Some large areas that seem to be neglected in most of the “common” or “universal” prayers that I have heard:

    1. families and family life, e.g. raising children, reconciliation, divorce, separation, widow(er)s

    2. work and work life, e.g. businesses, professions, the economy, change of jobs, retirement

    3. education, e.g. students, and study

    About sixty percent of Americans pray daily.

    If we collected data about the petitionary aspect of those daily prayers, the above areas would loom large. Likewise some of the customary areas of the Prayers of the Faithful, e.g. for the hierarchy and civil authorities, would be very low down on the list of personal prayers.

    Seems like a large gap may exist between public and personal prayer.

    Reply
  5. Lee Bacchi

    I wish Peter Scagnelli’s wonderful books of models of General Intercessions were still available; they were excellent ways to use biblical allusions for crafting thoughtful and challenging intercessions.

    Reply
  6. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    Once we change the intercessions from general to specific, then there always will be someone who is offended that someone or something wasn’t specifically included. This ends up in dividing rather than uniting the praying assembly and making all of us hyper-critical if our pet intercessions aren’t publicly addressed. Maybe the EF Mass was onto something in making the prayer of intercession for the Church a part of the Mass as a whole and the Roman Canon in particular.
    As far as actual participation the goal of SC should be observed in all liturgical celebrations original and revised. The priesthood of all the faithful can and is experienced in all forms of the Mass, east and west. The sound of this actual participation varies depending on the congregation and the rite. But the sound is superficial, the reality is the substance.

    Reply
    1. Gerard Flynn

      @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #10:

      So, are you arguing that the restoration called for by SC 50 and 53 should not continue? If the main thrust of this argument is that praying for specific needs is an intrinsically divisive activity, (which will be difficult for you to prove), you overlook the need for liturgy to be inculturated into a specific time and a specific location. The praying assemblies you refer to who are scandalised by references to specific needs appear very superficial.

      There is nothing more specific than the Incarnation.

      Reply
  7. Father Allan J. McDonald

    These prayers are called the General Intercessions, not the Specific Intercessions, or the revised name, the Universal Prayer, not the Parochical Prayer. It is best to use the models in the revised English Missal’s appendix and/or follow the general rule of praying for the Church, the world, the sick, suffering and dying and for the faithful departed. Adding a final petition “for our personal needs, we pray in silence” would cover everything else under the sun.

    Reply
    1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

      @Father Allan J. McDonald – comment #12:
      Is this a worry that the elevated nature of the liturgy is harmed by interjecting quotidian things like specific people and things into the liturgy? If we can pray for the Pope and bishop by name surely we can also pray for others by name, even if they are only of parochial interest.

      But maybe your concern is something different.

      Reply
      1. Father Allan J. McDonald

        @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #13:
        I would stop at Francis our Pope and Gregory our bishop. I would not add our two retired bishops or the retired pope’s name or Allan our pastor. Should we add the heads of councils, committees and every sick person in the parish? No, I think not.

  8. Paul Inwood

    I’m very interested in a different mediaeval tradition (does anyone know the history of it?) which lives on today in a significant number of French parishes. Here, the structural form is different. Instead of a spoken announcement of an intention for prayer followed by a silent pause and then a spoken or sung V/ and R/, this form is completely sung, and is a genuine litany with a rapid-fire dialogue between cantor/intercessor and assembly.

    A translation of a typical French example would run like this:

    Lord, save your people — Lord, save your people

    Father, to you we call — Lord, save your people
    Have mercy on us all — Lord, save your people
    You know our hopes and fears — Lord, save your people
    We ask you, hear our prayers — Lord, save your people
    Give strength to those in pain — Lord, save your people
    Give help to those in need — Lord, save your people
    And comfort all who mourn — Lord, save your people
    Relieve all those who are oppressed — Lord, save your people
    ….
    and ending
    And grant us all your peace — Lord, save your people
    repeated several times over.

    The most noticeable things about this form are
    (a) that the intentions are very general, and
    (b) that they are addressed directly to God, unlike the announcements in the form we are generally used to.

    When I asked Gelineau about this parallel tradition, since he was one of those who advocated its use in France, he was getting tired at the end of a long interview and so was not terribly forthcoming about it. He did point in the direction of litanies with Kyrie eleison responses, and even the Hagios ho Theos, Hagios ischuros, Hagios athanatos, eleison himas section in the Good Friday reproaches.

    The form that we are most familiar with today, in which we “pray for” or “pray that”, can be found both in the Byzantine rites and in the litanic form of Pope Gelasius. Where is the other form to be found?

    Reply
    1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

      @Paul Inwood – comment #16:
      This form seems reminiscent of the petitions at the end of the litany of the saints. Perhaps this was the model.

      Reply
  9. Jan Larson

    I have often wondered why the intercessions would include the pope and the local bishop when these two are already given special mention by name in every eucharistic prayer. This seems to be one of the “needless repetitions” of which the Constitution speaks. I also have trouble with intercessions or petitions which begin with “In thanksgiving for…”

    Reply
    1. Father Allan J. McDonald

      @Jan Larson – comment #17:
      I would agree and if you look at the 13 examples of the Universal Prayer in Appendix 5 of the Roman Missal there is only one that has a place for the names of the pope and local bishop.
      In terms of opening the intercession to spontaneous prayer from the congregation it would seem to be more appropriate in para liturgies and popular devotions rather than in the official liturgies of the Church.

      Reply
  10. Kyle Lechtenberg

    Thank you, Fr. Joncas and all, for these thought-provoking reflections. I wonder what others think of the practice of allowing spontaneous petitions at Sunday or weekday Masses.

    Each Sunday in the community where I regularly worship, a small parish of college students and resident non-student parishioners, there are a few petitions composed according to the format described above and announced by the reader. Then the reader says, “For what else shall we pray?” and anyone may offer a petition.

    The petitions that follow run the gamut of specific/parochial to general/universal and everything in between: “For Mary, and all those undergoing treatment for cancer, let us pray to the Lord.”

    I hear people of all ages offering prayers. One Sunday in a parish that employs this practice, I was unsettled and saddened by a homily that focused on the need to defend the Church from the media “maelstrom” on the sex abuse scandal in 2010 (when it was confirmed that the scandal is not confined to the U.S.). Nothing was mentioned about protecting the victims of the abuse and fostering their healing. So I offered a prayer to that end.

    Election season can get dicey in these communities. The priest is there to wrap it up after one that may have a little political charge, but by and large people self-regulate and keep it quite broad. I have found this time to sometimes be quite moving.

    One weekday, I was in a primarily Spanish speaking parish comprised of many newcomers to the US, and their petitions gave me a window into the needs of these parishioners (on that day). One woman was in tears as she prayed for a family member in her home country who was ill. Another person prayed for employment.

    I’m intrigued by the number of petitions that are offered. Some days it will go on for some time, some days it is short. What effect do the homily, music, liturgical season, or current events have on the petitions that are offered?

    What does the RITE really say about this: foster/tolerate/prohibit? And what do the PTB readers say?

    Reply
  11. Linda Reid

    As a musician who thinks the use of music makes all proclamation at liturgy better, I will speak to the value of chanting this rite. We chant the intercessions during the preparatory seasons of Lent and Advent. From my viewpoint as cantor, this seems to focus the assembly better than just reading the petitions. They respond with a hearty voice rather than the mumbled “Lord, hear our prayer”
    Speaking to another aspect, I truly dislike petitions that:
    a) drag on and on until one forgets why one is praying.
    b) are SO numerous that the assembly gets bored
    c) tell God exactly what to do; i.e. “For all the poor, that God will not only give them decent food and housing, but will imbue them with strength and will give them well paying jobs and will empower this community to give of their plenty so we may all………….”
    The general intercessions can be a beautiful moment in the liturgy, but a deft hand needs to fashion the rite.

    Reply
  12. John Kohanski

    Once again, why not look to the Great Litany or the Litany of Fervent Supplication in the Liturgy of St. John Chyrsostom, used by the Churches using the Byzantine rite? General and common petitions, and fulfilling exactly what this Article 53 seems to be searching for. And easily sung by the deacon, or song leader if there is no deacon, and responded to by the people.

    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