Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 81

Vatican website translation:

81. The rite for the burial of the dead should express more clearly the paschal character of Christian death, and should correspond more closely to the circumstances and traditions found in various regions. This holds good also for the liturgical color to be used.

Latin text:

81. Ritus exsequiarum paschalem mortis christianae indolem manifestius exprimat, atque condicionibus et traditionibus singularum regionum, etiam quoad colorem liturgicum, melius respondeat.

Slavishly literal translation:

81. Let funeral rites express more manifestly the paschal character of Christian death and better respond to the circumstances and traditions of individual regions, even with reference to the liturgical color.

Articles 81 and 82 present the Council Fathers’ wishes concerning the restoration/revision of the funeral rites and bring Chapter Three to a close.

Art. 81 signals a change of emphasis in the celebration of Christian death. If the general patristic teaching that the processions (with sung Alleluias) and stations (house, funeral chapel, grave site) associated with Christian burial expressed the community’s faith in the resurrection (standing in marked contrast to pagan stoicism or despair in the face of death), a different emphasis appears in the medieval additions to the burial rites, perhaps best indicated by the use of black vestments and the singing of the Dies irae (“O Day of Wrath”) Sequence. The Council Fathers seem to call for a more balanced expression of paschal faith, ritually acknowledging the Christian’s suffering, death, and burial in hope of resurrection with reference to Christ’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection. They also call for greater attention to be paid to the cultural customs surrounding death, re-emphasizing what they had laid down in arts. 37-40.

Pray Tell readers may wish to discuss the changes appearing in the post-Vatican II Roman Missal (both liturgical texts and lectionary selections) and Roman Ritual (both in the pastoral care of the sick and of the dying), how these changes have been received by the praying church in various parts of the world, and what changes might still be necessary or advisable.

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

23 responses to “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 81”

  1. Peter Kwasniewski

    Here’s a fine article from Paix Liturgique on what went wrong with the funeral and burial rites after the Council:

    Letter 49
    http://uk.paix-liturgique.org/

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Peter Kwasniewski – comment #1:
      Peter, you’ve linked a singularly unimpressive essay. Problems include a lack of understanding of the entirety of the paschal mystery. The Mass isn’t just about Calvary, but also the Cenacle and the Empty Tomb. And the Ascension. And the Great Commission.

      The Dies Irae is an impressive piece of poetry, and it has a long association with the preconciliar Requiem Mass. But it’s more fitting for November, the last weeks in Ordinary Time.

      “Was there any need, really, for a very imprudent Mass “for an unbaptized child”?”

      Yes. For the mourners.

      The funeral Mass is not magic. It is a pastoral expression of the Church’s faith, and it operates not only on a traditional basis. It must intersect where mourners dwell. It is less a time for preaching about the end things, and more a way to connect people with Jesus in their profound sorrow. The funeral Mass, especially among the Church’s liturgy, must go where people are, and not presume people will come running when horror, wrath, and judgment are cited.

      Reply
  2. Jordan Zarembo

    I’ve always thought that I should write into my will that the priest preach about the mystery of Christian death, and not about me, at the requiem. I agree with the article that often funeral sermons today are actually eulogies. Both my parents also do not want to be eulogized at their funeral, and worship in a parish where they will certainly not be eulogized.

    Priests should not be afraid to say the daily requiem on ferial days, even in the presence of a congregation. Why has this custom died out? The daily requiem is a profound affirmation that the Mass is for the living and the dead, attended by the sabaoth. Yes, I know that the Tridentine requiem is one of the shortest Masses in that tradition, and this is why priests often chose to say it often. Still, there is great spiritual benefit for the holy souls in this Mass, and I believe we have lost sight of this.

    As for Masses for unbaptized children: any newborn who is in danger of death should be baptized quickly. I was — my father called for a priest when he saw one in a hallway of the hospital, just to be sure that the situation described in this post would not take place. I find the idea of waiting to baptize a child until the christening party can be planned to be a very dangerous idea in many cases.

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      @Jordan Zarembo – comment #3:
      FWIW, your will will have absolutely no binding effect on what a priest does or doesn’t do in your funeral Mass.

      Reply
      1. Jordan Zarembo

        @Karl Liam Saur – comment #4:

        You are right Karl. I just have to hope that I am in a parish under the care of a priest who will know my wish before I die. I find it very unfortunate that I would have to worry whether or not a priest will preach about the readings of the Mass at my funeral.

        You would think though that a priest, given notice of the earnest wish of the deceased, would do his best to fulfill the request. If a priest cannot preach on the Last Things and Christian death, one has to wonder if he was wise to accept the cloth.

    2. Todd Flowerday

      @Jordan Zarembo – comment #3:
      I would have to disagree about the frequency of replacement of homilies for a eulogy. But then again, a priest likely to hire a liturgist is not usually going to make such an insertion. So I’ll admit my experience there is extremely limited.

      However, the use of eulogies at the funeral Mass above the telling of stories at a Vigil is less a failure of the reformed liturgy and more a locus of unreformed Catholic liturgical practice.

      I don’t think the misappropriation of the eschaton will counterbalance a perceived lurch toward eulogies. As KLS notes, the priest will do as he pleases at the funeral.

      The Missal provides for a votive Mass for the dead. Why are votive Masses less common? I suspect a deeper reverence for the liturgical year and for the remaining saints on the calendar. Plus a reticence about dropping in theme Masses on the daily calendar, though a few places will do Saturday Masses for the Blessed Mother.

      The Missal also provides for a number of Masses for special needs and occasions. Christian unity, government leaders, good weather–look over those “themes,” and we’ll likely find connections to a number of people who aren’t Catholic or possibly even Christian. Not to mention inanimate things like a good harvest.

      We should be clear when our objection is more because of the reform and renewal of the liturgy, and be cautious about manufactured reasons and justifications. Objecting to a Mass “for” an unbaptized person has an undercurrent.

      Reply
      1. Jordan Zarembo

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #5:

        “The Missal also provides for a number of Masses for special needs and occasions. Christian unity, government leaders, good weather–look over those “themes,” and we’ll likely find connections to a number of people who aren’t Catholic or possibly even Christian. Not to mention inanimate things like a good harvest.

        The fact that the collection of votives in either missal include non-eschatological Masses such as votives for peace in a time of war, a fruitful harvest, or against pestilence, does not change the reality that the votive for the dead fulfills special functions. These functions are both human (the desire that our dead are received into eternal life) and concrete (the reality of purgatory).

        It is true that every Mass commemorates the dead. The votive for the dead, however, makes more explicit what is less explicitly celebrated in the memento of the eucharistic prayer at every Mass. Similarly, the Blessed Virgin Mary is mentioned at numerous points at every Mass. The votive Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary amplify a part of the Mass, here for greater veneration of the BVM. I consider these amplifications to be beautiful confirmations that the concepts of Mass can be abstracted and contemplated separately.

        Objecting to a Mass “for” an unbaptized person has an undercurrent.

        I don’t understand how a funeral can be said for a person who has not been cleansed of original sin and incorporated into the Body of Christ (what propers can be said?), but I concede that theological objections are rather callous in these circumstances. My advocacy for very early baptism in some cases is precisely meant to avoid the situation you have described. Even if a newborn is baptized but dies before receiving the exorcisms and chrismation, the mourners can earnestly trust that the child now enjoys the beatific vision.

      2. Todd Flowerday

        @Jordan Zarembo – comment #10:
        Some of my post addressed the points offered by Dr Kwasniewski. Is saying a Mass “for” an unbaptized infant (I would disagree with that phrasing) doesn’t seem all that different from saying a Mass for good weather or for a secular government.

        “I don’t understand how a funeral can be said for a person who has not been cleansed of original sin and incorporated into the Body of Christ …”

        Would you object to a funeral for a catechumen? Does parental intent mean nothing? Even if a parent or medical person did not baptize an infant, it would seem sufficient for the person to sign the infant’s forehead and “claim” the young person for Christ her or his savior.

        It strikes me that the funeral Mass is not “for” unbaptized children or good weather or even “for” the Blessed Mother. Look to SC 7, and the purpose of the liturgy: the glorification of God and the sanctification of the faithful. Mass is celebrated for those reasons.

        More accurately, we can say we are mindful of a saint, or of a cause, or of a departed person. But the funeral Mass is celebrated “for” mourners. Designating a Mass “for” the deceased strikes me as pandering to the reason why some mourners might look for eulogies. The funeral Mass does not honor, as such, the person who has died as some kind of Christian paragon, someone whose membership is in good standing.

        Haven’t TLM advocates here fallen into the same trap for which they criticize modern Catholics?

        “Callous” strikes me as an appropriate word in this instance.

      3. Jordan Zarembo

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #11:

        Todd, while in the car today I figured out that I am advocating error. You are quite orthodox when you write that baptism of desire is one of the extraordinary forms of baptism outside the sacrament. Leonard Feeney erroneously preached that only those who are baptized by water can be saved. I am wrong, and apologize for not realizing this sooner.

        “Haven’t TLM advocates here fallen into the same trap for which they criticize modern Catholics?”

        One important aim of the EF movement is the desire to combat not only the concept but also the practice of liturgical ressourcement. Mass is certainly for the sanctification of the faithful, and I doubt any serious traditionalist would deny this. Indeed they cannot, for this is orthodox. However, part of the battle against ressourcement is a desire to return to previous expressions of piety which express orthodoxy in different, perhaps complementary but also implicit, ways.

        For the traditionalist the rites are the basis for theological interpretation and practical implementation, while the inverse is often true for the modern rites. Just because the unreformed requiem focuses intently on the fate of the deceased does not mean that traditionalists are blind to the sanctification of mourners. Quite the opposite — the admonitions of the the requiem are also designed to arouse repentance in the mourners.

        Todd, our conversations are often complementary. It is as if we both strive for orthodoxy in our writings, but desire this orthodoxy by mirroring one another.

      4. Todd Flowerday

        @Jordan Zarembo – comment #12:
        Also, I find our conversations stimulating. Perhaps the mirroring we express is part of how the human body is so complementary: arms, legs, lungs, heart, eyes, ears, etc., with left and right iterations.

        I have to admit that my many encounters with traditional-minded Catholics over the years, especially on the internet, have challenged me to examine my studies, practices, motives, and the like. More than just sword-sharpening, I would hope.

        Before I may have valued my friends who happened to be conservatives or traditionalists–valued them as friends–I think today I see more searching in my thought for connections between modern expressions and a classical orthodoxy. That must be a more sound path than antagonism, surely.

    3. Paul R. Schwankl

      @Jordan Zarembo – comment #3:
      In Canada in the 1970s, the National Office for Liturgy discouraged the use of the Daily Mass for the Dead:
      “Other [nonfuneral] Masses for the Dead should be celebrated in moderation, and not too often. They are normally permitted only on ferial days in ordinary time, as long as they are actually applied for the dead. It would be an abuse to celebrate such Masses regularly.
      “For the spiritual good of the faithful and to preserve the richer selection of God’s word as given in the weekday lectionary, the Mass for the Dead should not be used often: each Mass is offered for the living and the dead, and there is a remembrance of the dead in each of the Eucharistic Prayers.”
      It seems to me that the normal course of the lectionary provides numerous occasions for priests to preach on the four last ends, purgatory, and the ancient practice of prayer for the dead. And All Souls’ Day, as I understand it, is supposed to stress the penitential and intercessory aspects of our liturgical relation to the departed. (So I have trouble seeing the point of it if it’s celebrated as a milder reprise of All Saints’ Day.)

      Reply
  3. Adam Booth, CSC

    I’ve always found paragraph 27 of the prenotanda of the Order of Christian Funerals very helpful in preparing myself to preach at funerals. It directs that homilies be:

    “on the readings…
    “… on God’s compassionate love and on the paschal mystery…
    “…help the members of the assembly to understand that the mystery of God’s love and the mystery of Jesus’ victorious death and resurrection were present *in the life and death of the deceased*.”

    We don’t bury generic people; we bury particular people. We can’t evade the particularity of the person we’re burying. At the same time, we’re not giving a talk about them, but proclaiming that in their life and death is revealed something of God’s action.

    I think there’s a false dichotomy between “eulogy” and “preaching about the mystery of Christian death.” It’s possible to do both, and the rite in fact instructs us too.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Adam Booth, CSC – comment #7:
      Thank you, Fr Adam. I know Fr Kenney was insulted by my suggestion of looking to the praenotanda last week, but it is an essential part of the study of liturgy. All too often it is clear who’s done homework and who hasn’t.

      As for the anonymous author(s) at Paix Liturgique, I understand their sensibility is with the TLM. But in order to comment thoughtfully on the modern Roman Rite, really: a proper study of the documents is essential.

      Reply
    2. Fritz Bauerschmidt

      @Adam Booth, CSC – comment #7:
      I had the honor of giving the homily at my father in law’s funeral, and I strove to do what the Prenotanda asks. I’ve linked it not because I think it’s an ideal funeral homily, but simply to indicate that it is possible both to preach the paschal mystery and to relate it to the particulars of the life of the deceased (of course, some might think I’ve failed in one or both of those tasks).

      Of course, this requires a preacher who knows some of those particulars (especially since they are often complex and ambiguous). Unfortunately, in many of our mega-parishes it is probably a pretty rare occasion that a priest or deacon really has any firsthand knowledge of the person he is burying, particularly since the person might have been unable to come to Mass for a number of years. As always, specific liturgical questions–like what is appropriate for a funeral homily–raise a host of other pastoral issues, like parish size and how we reach out to elderly parishioners who cannot come to our Sunday liturgy.

      Reply
  4. Karl Liam Saur

    I should add that there are traditionalist Catholics who object strenuously that the Church’s public liturgical prayers for the dead normatively include only the deceased public faithful. Make of that what one will. But that’s one of the perspectives lurking here.

    Reply
  5. Mike Joncas

    Re: Karl Liam Saur’s comment at #14. Similarly, I expect, one might read the shift from Eucharistic Prayer 1’s text at the Memento of the Dead (“Remember also, Lord, your servants N. and N., who have gone before us MARKED WITH THE SIGN OF FAITH and rest in the sleep of peace. Grant them, O Lord, we pray, AND ALL WHO SLEEP IN CHRIST, a place of refreshment, light and peace) to the parallel texts in other approved Roman Rite Eucharistic Prayers (II: “Remember also our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection, AND ALL WHO HAVE DIED IN YOUR MERCY….”; III: “To our departed brothers and sisters AND TO ALL WHO WERE PLEASING TO YOU AT THEIR PASSING FROM THIS LIFE give kind admittance to your kingdom….”; IV: “Remember also those who have died in the peace of your Christ AND ALL THE DEAD, WHOSE FAITH YOU ALONE HAVE KNOWN….”) as either an enriching extension of our prayer commending all the dead to the God who wills that all be saved or a watering down of the importance of explicit faith in Christ for salvation.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Mike Joncas – comment #15:
      Or it could be that the modern prayers are less arrogant, less of a usurpation of the Last Judge. The reality is that nobody on this planet today decides who is saved and who is not. The Church and its ministers are means God provides to a salvific end. That is the extent of it.

      The mirror of the accusation of watering down faith in Christ is that traditionalists are espousing their tradition takes the place of Christ himself. Of course they criticize a so-called horizontal Church–they see themselves an agent of the divine action of salvation. Not just a facilitator. Naturally they emphasize a “vertical” dimension, as long as they are the boss of it.

      Reply
      1. Jordan Zarembo

        @Todd Flowerday – comment #16:

        Todd, I recognize your sentiment that traditionalists sometimes or even often place themselves as the arbiters of salvation. I would counter that many traditionalists are gravely dissatisfied that the eschatology of death is not preached and honored to the degree it should be. Karl (#14) puts this succinctly. Put another way, traditionalists are scandalized that few priests preach on purgatory. Many traditionalists do not want to narrow the path to salvation, but instead encourage a recognition of all aspects of the mysteries of life and death regardless of the difficulty of discussing certain topics.

        An accusation that traditionalists are morbidly obsessed (as demonstrated by the fascination of some traditionalists with the Tridentine requiem) is not entirely off-base. Even so, I would not characterize traditionalist disappointment with the inability of preachers to explain the full economy of the Mass as necessarily a fixation on death (though this may be the case for some). Rather, in the view of many traditionalists weak catechesis and preaching is a deficiency of the practice of the reformed Mass.

        I now attend an Ordinary Form parish which does talk about the eschaton and the Mass. The preachers go out of their way to not dwell on death. Balanced preaching about the relationship between the Mass and the circle of life is possible. Traditionalist claims that the practice of the reformed liturgy is the genesis of perceived problems is exaggerated in my view.

  6. Paul Inwood

    One of the “success stories” of the revised funeral rites is the widespread adoption of white as the liturgical colour, the use of the white pall to symbolize the Christian “white garment”, and the use of sung Alleluias. The stance of rejoicing that the deceased friend/relative is now in a better place with Christ and the angels and saints has proved preferable to the Dies Irae et Ignis, etc stance, though some still struggle with it.

    However, I still encounter some folk who insist that the preferred order of liturgical colours is black – violet – white, rather than white – violet – black. Different versions of the documents have in fact varied the preferred order of colours over the years. There are also cultural considerations, of course. In the Orient, black is the colour for rejoicing and white is the colour of mourning, if I understand correctly.

    Reply
    1. Ren Aguila

      @Paul Inwood – comment #17: Yep, white is indeed considered a color of mourning among the Chinese in particular.

      Reply
  7. Fr. Jack Feehily

    The funeral rite and its impact on mourners has indeed had its ups and downs. There’s a traditionalist bishop nearby who likes to refer to funeral Masses as “Mass of the Resurrection”. Now perhaps he is thinking about the Risen One, but there has been a tendency to celebrate the funeral Mass as if it is an act of canonization, so as to securely include the deceased as among those now in heaven. But occasionally I have presided at the funerals of individuals whose witness to Christ during their usually long earthly lives have been exemplary. If the mourners think of their passed loved one as a saint, then so do I. My funeral homilies are always rooted in the Paschal Mystery and I make that clear to family members when arranging the details of the Mass with them. But at that meeting I also ask them to share with me the ways in which they remember the deceased so that my homily will clearly reflect that person’s life. I don’t give canned homilies for “the dead”. When there is a vigil service, I provide those present with an opportunity to give a short remembrance and tell the family that this is a particularly good time for a short eulogy. I do welcome the family to designate someone who can thank the mourners following Communion at which time a short memorial may be given. Often a grandchild will read a poem, or an adult child will read something they have written in tribute to their parent. It is never too long and invariably touching. (BTW, I continue to bring The Peace of Christ to the immediate family members seated in the first row, after which I extend the Peace to the deceased by kissing the casket.)
    Recently I had a funeral service (no Mass) for a child who lived for only a few minutes following just 30 weeks gestation. The focus was on thanksgiving and an attempt to discern the meaning of the paschal mystery under such unusual circumstances. A Protestant chaplain had baptized the child and thus the service acknowledged her adoption into God’s loving family of faith.

    Reply
  8. Mike Joncas

    This is a serious inquiry on my part and not meant to be snarky in any way, because I simply don’t know. Do traditionalists consider preaching about limbo to be part of what I think Mr. Zarembo means by “honoring the eschatology of death to the degree that it should be”? If so, why so, and if not, why not?

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      @Paul R. Schwankl – comment #21:

      I think that the Canadian National Office for Liturgy’s recommendations are appropriate. I don’t think it an abuse for a priest to say a Mass for the dead once a month, or even quarterly, though. I do agree that there should be minimal interruptions to the readings, but that occasional interruption is okay..

      @Mike Joncas – comment #22:

      I’ve never heard a traditionalist sermon on limbo. I don’t go to the EF every Sunday like I used to, so maybe I was at my other (OF) parish that day. I don’t know how many traditionalists believe in limbo, but it’s still possible even if Pope Benedict declared that the doctrine was more a tradition than a theological tenet.

      I think traditionalists emphasize the cult of the dead for two reasons. First, while I have yet to hear a traditional priest in union with Rome deprecate the Council’s emphasis on the paschal mystery aspect of the Mass, the emphasis is clearly on the sacrificial. Also, as I’ve said earlier, traditionalists often emphasize what they consider lost in postmodern Catholicism (but hey, many traditionalist priests do not often preach on the what has been gained by the Council, such as the paschal mystery!) Hanging on to apocryphal beliefs like limbo, then, could be viewed either as oppositional defiance or a way to create theological distinctions which emphasize that traditionalist culture is unique and separate.

      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