Liturgicae Instaurationes 13

We reach the end of the third instruction on the implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

13. In conclusion: it must be remembered that the liturgical reform decided on by the Council affects the universal Church. It thus requires in pastoral meetings a study of its meaning and practice for the Christian education of the people to the end that the liturgy may become vital, touch the soul, and meet its needs.

It would be interesting to know how many of the early disaffected clergy, musicians, and liturgists participated in such meetings. It might be even more indicative how widespread such meetings were on the diocesan level in the late 60′s and early 70′s, a rather critical time for the reform.

The contemporary reform aims at making available liturgical prayer that has its origin in a living and honored tradition. Once available this prayer must appear clearly as the work of the entire people of God in all their orders and ministries. (See GIRM 58.) The effectiveness and authenticity of this reform has as its sole guarantee the unity of the whole ecclesial organism.

The goal: making liturgy a tradition both living and honored.

Prompted by a ready obedience to church laws and precepts and by a spirit of faith, and putting aside purely personal preferences or idiosyncrasies, pastors especially should be ministers of the community liturgy through personal example, study, and an intelligent, persistent catechesis. They will thus prepare for that flowering spring expected from this liturgical reform, which looks to the needs of the age and which repudiates the secular and arbitrary as lethal to itself.

This last paragraph strikes me as a challenge put forth to pastors who might otherwise consider resistance. I like the emphasis for these guys: personal example of prayer first. Then personal study. Then a catechesis for the people that is both intelligent and persistent.

Note also that even seven years after Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Roman liturgists weren’t yet expecting a spring. These reforms were only seeds planted for a future blossoming.

Pope Paul VI has approved this Instruction, prepared at his mandate by the Congregation for Divine Worship, and confirmed it with his authority on 3 September 1970, ordering its publication and its observance by all concerned.

Any last comments before we move on?

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 12

The Consilium announces the end of an open era of liturgical experimentation:

12. Any liturgical experimentation that may seem necessary or advantageous receives authorization from this Congregation alone, in writing, with norms clearly set out, and subject to the responsibility of the competent local authority

All earlier permissions for experimentation with the Mass, granted in view of the liturgical reform as it was in progress, are to be considered as no longer in effect. Since publication of the Missale Romanum the norms and forms of eucharistic celebration are those given in the General Instruction and the Order of Mass.

The conferences of bishops are to draw up in detail any adaptations envisioned in the liturgical books and submit them for confirmation to the Holy See.

Should further adaptations become necessary, in keeping with the norm of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium art. 40,f the conference of bishops is to examine the issue thoroughly, attentive to the character and traditions of each people and to specific pastoral needs. When some form of experimentation seems advisable, there is to be a precise delineation of its limits and a testing within qualified groups by prudent and specially appointed persons. Experimentation should not take place in large-scale celebrations nor be widely publicized. Experiments should be few and not last beyond a year. A report then is to be sent to the Holy See. While a reply is pending, use of the petitioned adaptation is forbidden. When changes in the structure of rites or in the order of parts as set forth in the liturgical books are involved, or any departure from the usual, or the introduction of new texts, a point-by-point outline is to be submitted to the Holy See prior to the beginning of any kind of experiment.

Such a procedure is called for and demanded by both the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (See SC art. 40.) and the importance of the issue.

Adaptations are now drawn up by national conferences and sent to Rome for approval. National conferences also oversee experiments, limiting use, time, and publicity.

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 11

We have some interesting notes on translation in this section. First, that translation accuracy was indeed a value in 1970:

11. An understanding of the reformed liturgy still demands an intense effort for accurate translations and editions of the revised liturgical books. These must be translated in their entirety and other, particular liturgical books in use must be suppressed.

We also read that interim editions are not to be used.

At the conference level, bishops may add to the body of the original liturgical edition:

Should any conference of bishops judge it necessary and timely to add further formularies or to make particular adaptations, these are to be incorporated after the approval of the Holy See and by means of a distinctive typeface are to be clearly set off as separate from the original Latin text.

The whole tenor of the reform effort seems to change at this point. The Consilium regards the need to “proceed without haste,” consulting competent persons to assist in future translations:

In this matter it is advisable to proceed without haste, enlisting the help not only of theologians and liturgists, but of people of learning and letters. Then the translations will be documents of tested beauty; their grace, balance, elegance, and richness of style and language will endow them with the promise of lasting use; they will match the requirements of the inner richness of their content. (See Paul VI Address to liturgical commissions of Italy 7 February 1969.)

No identification of authors:

The preparation of vernacular liturgical books is to follow the traditional norms for publishing texts: translators or authors are to remain anonymous; liturgical books are for the service of the Christian community and editing and publication is by mandate and authority of the hierarchy, which under no consideration is answerable to outsiders. That would be offensive to the freedom of church authority and the dignity of liturgy.

What do you think of this?

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 10

Architecture and interior arrangement gets a notice:

10. In applying the reform of the liturgy, bishops should have special concern about the fixed and worthy arrangement of the place of worship, especially the sanctuary, in conformity with the norms set forth in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (See GIRM 153-280. ) and the Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium.(See Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium 52-57. )

Arrangements begun in recent years as temporary have tended in the meantime to take on a permanent form. Even some repudiated by the Consilium continue, though in fact they are in conflict with the sense of the liturgy, aesthetic grace, and the smoothness and dignity of liturgical celebration. (See Consilium Letter of Cardinal G. Lercaro to presidents of the conferences of bishops, 30 June 1965. )

Through the collaboration of diocesan commissions on liturgy and on sacred art and, if necessary, through consultation with experts or even with civil authorities, there should be a complete review of the blueprints for new constructions and of the existing adaptations. The aim is to ensure a fixed arrangement in all churches that will preserve ancient monuments where necessary and to the fullest extent possible meet new needs.

Churches do need a certain degree of continuity, but let’s not forget that many of the great churches of Europe took decades to finish.

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 9

More from the Consilium on some items which, it seems, still are timely cautions today:

9. The Eucharist is celebrated as a rule in a place of worship. (See GIRM 260.) Apart from cases of real need, as adjudged by the Ordinary for his jurisdiction, celebration outside a church is not permitted. When the Ordinary does allow this, there must be care that a worthy place is chosen and that the Mass is celebrated on a suitable table. If at all possible, the celebration should not take place in a dining room or on a dining room table.

Comments?

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 8

In 1970, Rome gave a “greater latitude” for objects, clothing, and furniture used in liturgy. That has closed down somewhat since.

8. Sacred vessels, vestments, and furnishings are to be treated with proper respect and care. The greater latitude granted with regard to their material and design is intended to give the various peoples and artisans opportunity to devote the full power of their talents to sacred worship.

But the following points must be kept in mind.

a. Objects having a place in worship must always be “of high quality, durable, and well suited to sacred uses.” (See GIRM no. 288. ) Anything that is trivial or commonplace must not be used.

b. Before use, chalices and patens are to be consecrated by the bishop, who will decide whether they are fit for their intended function.

How many parishes ask or asked the bishop to consecrate Eucharistic vessels?

c. “The vestment common to ministers of every rank is the alb.” (See GIRM 298. ) The abuse is here repudiated of celebrating or even concelebrating Mass with stole only over the monastic cowl or over ordinary clerical garb, to say nothing of street clothes. Equally forbidden is the wearing of the stole alone over street clothes when carrying out other ritual acts, for example, the laying on of hands at ordinations, administering other sacraments, giving blessings.

d. It is up to the conferences of bishops to decide whether it is advisable to choose materials other than the traditional for the sacred furnishings. They are to inform the Apostolic See about their decisions. (See SC art. 128.)

As to the design of vestments, the conferences of bishops have the power to decide on and to propose to the Holy See adaptations consistent with the needs and customs of the respective regions. (See GIRM no. 304.)

These topics have gotten some attention in recent years. Any thoughts about the evolution of ecclesiastical thinking? Other comments?

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 7

Here’s a snapshot of the state of women’s liturgical ministries in 1970:

7. In conformity with norms traditional in the Church, women (single, married, religious), whether in churches, homes, convents, schools, or institutions for women, are barred from serving the priest at the altar.

According to the norms established for these matters, however, women are allowed to:

a. proclaim the readings, except the gospel. They are to make sure that, with the help of modern sound equipment, they can be comfortably heard by all. The conferences of bishops are to give specific directions on the place best suited for women to read the word of God in the liturgical assembly.

Interesting that there would be a consideration of having women proclaim Scripture from a place other than the ambo or pulpit.

b. announce the intentions in the general intercessions;

c. lead the liturgical assembly in singing and play the organ or other instruments;

d. read the commentary assisting the people toward a better understanding of the rite;

e. attend to other functions, customarily filled by women in other settings, as a service to the congregation, for example, ushering, organizing processions, taking up the collection. (See GIRM no. 68.)

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 6

This following section on receiving communion deserves some attention. As with many documents, even Sacrosanctum Concilium, this section represents an evolving approach to liturgical ministry. Unlike the snapshot quotes bandied about by both traditionalists and progressives, we have to view these developments as … well … part of an organic development in pastoral ministry. We should remember that some post-conciliar liturgical experiments bore fruit and merited further movement.
 

6. In its sacramental sign value communion under both kinds expresses a more complete sharing by the faithful. (See GIRM 240. a.-e. ) Its concession has as limits the determinations of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (242) and the norm of the Instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Sacramentali Communione, on the extension of the faculty for administering communion under both kinds, 29 June 1970. 

a. Ordinaries are not to grant blanket permission but, within the limits set by the conference of bishops, are to specify the instances and celebrations for this form of communion. To be excluded are occasions when the number of communicants is great. The permission should be for specific, structured, and homogeneous assemblies.

b. A thorough catechesis is to precede admittance to communion under both kinds so that the people will fully perceive its significance. c. Priests, deacons, or acolytes who have received institution should be present to offer communion from the chalice. If there are none of these present, the rite is to be carried out by the celebrant as it is set out in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal 245.

c. The method of having the communicants pass the chalice from one to another or having them go directly to the chalice to receive the precious blood does not seem advisable. Instead of this, communion should be by intinction.

d. The first minister of communion is the priest celebrant, next deacons, then acolytes, in particular cases to be determined by the competent authority. The Holy See has the power to permit the appointment of other known and worthy persons as ministers, if they have received a mandate. Those lacking this mandate cannot distribute communion or carry the vessels containing the blessed sacrament.

The manner of distributing communion is to conform to the directives of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (244-252) and of the 29 June 1970 Instruction of this Congregation. Should there be any concession of a manner of distribution differing from the usual, the conditions the Apostolic See lays down are to be observed.

e. Wherever, for want of priests, other persons—for example, catechists in mission areas—receive from the bishop, with the concurrence of the Apostolic See, the right to celebrate the liturgy of the word and distribute communion, they are to refrain absolutely from reciting the eucharistic prayer. Should it seem desirable to read the institution narrative, they should make it a reading in the liturgy of the word. In the kind of assemblies in question, then, the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and the distribution of holy communion with the prescribed rite immediately follow the liturgy of the word.

f. Whatever the manner of distributing, great care is to be taken for its dignified, devout, and decorous administration and for forestalling any danger of irreverence. There is to be due regard for the character of the liturgical assembly and for the age, circumstances, and degree of preparation of the recipients. (See Instruction Sacra communione, 29 June 1970, 6.)

Note that all GIRM references are to the 1969 edition: I didn’t bother to update them here.

How to sum it up? What about this:

• Receiving Communion under the form of both bread and wine is a more complete sharing. In later years, it will be described as a “more perfect” expression.
• National conferences and individual bishops, not pastors, will set the boundaries.
• Proper catechesis is essential.
• Intinction preferred over drinking.
• Provisions are made for extraordinary ministers, but at Word services with Communion, the institution narrative is only permitted as a reading.
• Caution against irreverence

Any thoughts?

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 5

The Consilium gets into confection. That’s confecting thebread used for the Sacrament:

5. The bread for eucharistic celebration is bread of wheat and, in keeping with the age- old custom of the Latin Church, unleavened. (See GIRM 282.)

Its authenticity as sign requires that the bread have the appearance of genuine food to be broken and shared in together. At the same time the bread, whether the small host for communion of the faithful or the larger hosts to be broken into parts, is always to be made in the traditional shape, in keeping with the norm of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. (See GIRM 283.)

The need for greater authenticity relates to color, taste, and thickness rather than to shape. Out of reverence for the sacrament the eucharistic bread should be baked with great care, so that the breaking can be dignified and the eating not offensive to the sensibilities of the people. Bread that tastes of uncooked flour or that becomes quickly so hard as to be inedible is not to be used As befits the sacrament, the breaking of the consecrated bread, the taking of the consecrated bread and wine in communion, and the consuming of leftover hosts after communion should be done with reverence. (See Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium 25 May 1967, no 48. )

Some bits of confusion. The bread is supposed to have the appearance of genuine food, yet the presumption is that it will be made into the “traditional shape,” which is decidedly not like most any of the bread any westerner eats today.

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 4

Blogging will be light for the next few weeks. My mother is in town, and given that the guest room also doubles as the computer room, I may not be posting quite as much.

4. The eucharistic prayer more than any other part of the Mass is, by reason of his office, the prayer of the priest alone. (See GIRM no 10.) Recitation of any part by a lesser minister, the assembly, or any individual is forbidden. Such a course conflicts with the hierarchic character of the liturgy in which all are to do all but only those parts belonging to them. (See SC art. 28.) The priest alone, therefore, is to recite the entire eucharistic prayer.

I remember that the various experimental prayers were still in vogue in some places through the seventies. Until the chaplain at my alma mater began liturgy studies at Notre Dame in 1979, they were in use there.

The issue of extra acclamations, however, does have some traditional legs. Both practices, shared recitation of the EP and the extra acclamations are pretty much a dead issue these days.

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 3d-g: Texts

Tonight we continue with the second part of Liturgicae Instaurationes 3, looking at considerations for the texts of the then-new Roman Missal:

d. Broad options are given for the choice of prayers. Especially on weekdays in Ordinary Time the sources are any one of the Mass prayers from the thirty-four weeks of Ordinary Time or the prayers from the Masses for Various Occasions (See General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM), no. 323, 27 March 1975.) or from the votive Masses.

For translations of the prayers the conferences of bishops are empowered to use the special norms in no. 34 of the Instruction on translations of liturgical texts for celebrations with a congregation, issued by the Consilium, 25 January 1969. (See Consilium Instruction Comme le prevoit, 25 January 1969, no. 34, also nos. 21-24. )

e. As for readings, besides those assigned for every Sunday, feast, and weekday, there are many others for use in celebrating the sacraments or for other special occasions. In Masses for special groups the option is granted to choose texts best suited to the particular celebration, as long as they come from an authorized lectionary. (See SCDW, Instr Actio pastoralis 15 May 1969, no. 6 e. )

I’ll note here that Mass readings are to derive from a Lectionary, not a Bible.

f. The priest may say a very few words to the congregation at the beginning of the Mass and before the readings, the preface, and the dismissal, (See GIRM no 11.) but should give no instruction during the eucharistic prayer. Whatever he says should be brief and to the point, thought out ahead of time. Any other instructions that might be needed should be the responsibility of the “moderator” of the assembly, who is to avoid going on and on and say only what is strictly necessary.

Brevity is a liturgical virtue. This section would seem to deny the option of making announcements before the homily, as I saw a priest recently do.

g. The general intercessions in addition to the intentions for the Church, the world, and those in need may properly include one pertinent to the local community. That will forestall adding intentions to Eucharistic Prayer I (Roman Canon) in the commemorations of the living and the dead. Intentions for the general intercessions are to be prepared and written out beforehand and in a form consistent with the genre of the prayer. (See GIRM nos. 45-46.) The reading of the intentions may be assigned to one or more of those present at the liturgy.

What do you think of these prescriptions for the general intercessions?

Used intelligently, these faculties afford such broad options that there is no reason for resorting to individualistic creations. Accordingly priests are instructed to prepare their celebrations with their mind on the actual circumstances and the spiritual needs of the people and with faithful adherence to the limits set by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

These final notes on preparing liturgy (note that it is not “planning”) give some important cautions:

1. The Roman Rite options are so broad that novelties need not be utilized to address the spiritual needs of the faithful. Staying within the limits of the GIRM is a virtue.
2. Importantly, liturgical preparation is to consider the needs of the people above other unmentioned possibilities, including the personal tastes of musicians or clergy.

Any thoughts?

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 3a-c: Mostly Music

This is a lengthy section. I’ll be splitting up this section into two posts. Today’s post leans more to music than what follows in d through g. Comment on anything you wish in the boxes.

3. The liturgical texts themselves, composed by the Church, are to be treated with the highest respect. No one, then, may take it on (herself or) himself to make changes, substitutions, deletions, or additions. (See SC 22, # 3.)

a. There is special reason to keep the Order of Mass intact. Under no consideration, not even the pretext of singing the Mass, may the official translations of its formularies be altered. There are, of course, optional forms, noted in the context of the various rites, for certain parts of the Mass: the penitential rite, the eucharistic prayers, acclamations, final blessing.

The situation of altering the text of Mass parts is more of a European phenomenon, so my colleagues tell me.

b. Sources for the entrance and communion antiphons are: the Graduale romanum, The Simple Gradual, the Roman Missal, and the compilations approved by the conferences of bishops. In choosing chants for Mass, the conferences should take into account not only suitability to the times and differing circumstances of the liturgical services, but also the needs of the faithful using them.

As one might expect, the official chants are the first choice. These editions of the Gradual were revised and completed a few years after this document was promulgated. The national compilation mentioned here never happened in the US. If any international readers care to offer testimony, which other nations either had an official hymnal (Canada, I know) or didn’t? Do the national hymnals possess the formal approval of bishops’ conferences?

c. Congregational singing is to be fostered by every means possible, even by use of new types of music suited to the culture of the people and to the contemporary spirit. The conferences of bishops should authorize a list of songs that are to be used in Masses with special groups, for example, with youth or children, and that in text, melody, rhythm, and instrumentation are suited to the dignity and holiness of the place and of divine worship.

The emphasis on congregational singing by every means possible is not surprising.

The Church does not bar any style of sacred music from the liturgy. (See SCR. Instruction Musicam sacram. 5 March 1957, no. 9.) Still, not every style or the sound of every song or instrument deserves equal status as an aid to prayer and an expression of the mystery of Christ. All musical elements have as their one purpose the celebration of divine worship. They must, then, possess sacredness and soundness of form, (See Musicam sacram no. 4.) fit in with the spirit of the liturgical service and the nature of its particular parts; they must not be a hindrance to an intense participation of the assembly (See SC art. 119-120.) but must direct the mind’s attention and the heart’s sentiments toward the rites.

Relying on Musicam Sacram and Sacrosanctum Concilium, the decision on suitability of genre is left to the parish, with the assumption that local clergy and musicians there can apply the judgments listed here. Clearly, the “contemporary spirit” of a people and culture would indicate the choice of genre, instrumentation, and repertoire was then, is today, and likely will always be an open choice.

More specific determinations belong to the conferences of bishops or where there are no general norms as yet, to the bishop within his diocese. (See Musicam sacram sScr no. 9.) Every attention is to be given to the choice of musical instruments; limited in number and suited to the region and to community culture, they should prompt devotion and not be too loud.

If one is looking for more particular legislation on style, instrumentation, or repertoire, the Consilium states conferences of bishops or individual bishops will be responsible. Despite some emerging problems and concerns, Rome is clearly saying that they will not legislate particulars which could and should be decided on a lower administrative level.

Musical instruments: not too loud. Except for one seminarian rock band I heard in 1972, the organ has long struck me as the instrument capable of the greatest extreme of sound.

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 2: Liturgy of the Word

The Consilium walks the middle way in their assessment and advice for the Liturgy of the Word:

2. Of all the texts read in the liturgical assembly the books of sacred Scripture possess the primacy of a unique dignity: in them God is speaking to his people; Christ, in his own word, continues to proclaim his Gospel. (See SC 7 and 33.) Therefore:

a. The liturgy of the word demands cultivation with the utmost attention. In no case is it allowed to substitute readings from other sacred or profane authors, ancient or modern. The homily has as its purpose to explain to the faithful the word of God just proclaimed and to adapt it to the mentality of the times. The priest, therefore, is the homilist; the congregation is to refrain from comments, attempts at dialogue, or anything similar. To have only a single reading is never allowed.

b. The liturgy of the word prepares and leads up to the liturgy of the Eucharist, forming with it the one act of worship. (See SC art. 56. ) To separate the two, therefore, or to celebrate them at different times or places is not permitted. As for integrating some liturgical service or part of the divine office before Mass with the liturgy of the word, the guidelines are the norms laid down in the liturgical books for the case in question.

We seem to be seeing responses to particular problems. Cultivation of the Liturgy of the Word requires a faithfulness to the Lectionary. The Liturgy of the Word is more than just medium to long elocutions on some profound point of religion or philosophy. If something needs elaboration, the homily is more suited to that purpose. In fact, we note that the purpose of the homily is to “explain” the word of God, considering the needs of the people present. It would seem that whenever some point of Scripture is vague or unfamiliar, the homilist’s duty is not to skip over it, but to apply himself to examine it.

No other public comments or dialogue are permitted during the homily. As a blanket policy, that strike me as being a bit restrictive. On the other hand, I can appreciate that the “final word” should not be disputed in the minds of worshippers. After all, there are other settings for questions, answers, and faith discussion. Those are all needful, but using the “captive audience” of the liturgy as the backdrop for it would be an occasion of abuse.

Aside from the celebration of the sacraments, I’m not aware of any practice separating the two Liturgies. If any 60′s refugee has any story to tell on this one, I’m interested. I’d be surprised to hear of any traditionalist dispensing with the readings, even if they were the new, unfamiliar ones of the 1969 Lectionary. The importance of the Word is something that’s been hard to deny.

Comments?

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes 1

As we get into the main body of Liturgicae Instaurationes, we read first of one of the core principles applied to liturgical reform, “noble simplicity.”

1. The new norms have made liturgical formularies, gestures, and actions much simpler, in keeping with that principle established in the Constitution on the Liturgy: “The rites should be marked by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension and as a rule not require much explanation.” (SC 34.) No one should go beyond these defined limits; to do so would be to strip the liturgy of its sacred symbolism and proper beauty, so needed for the fulfillment of the mystery of salvation in the Christian community and, with the help of an effective catechesis, for its comprehension under the veil of things that are seen.

Notice the perspective of the Consilium here. They see the new Roman Missal as adequately leaned down. The limit we are cautioned against is the trespass of stripping more things away from the liturgy. If aspects of the liturgy present spiritual or pastoral problems, catechesis is the proper remedy, suggests Rome, not further pruning.

A disclaimer follows:

The liturgical reform bears absolutely no relation to what is called “desacralization” and in no way intends to lend support to the phenomenon of “secularizing the world.” Accordingly the rites must retain their dignity, spirit of reverence, and sacred character.

And a caution for presiders and other liturgical leaders:

The effectiveness of liturgy does not lie in experimenting with rites and altering them over and over, nor in a continuous reductionism, but solely in entering more deeply into the word of God and the mystery being celebrated. It is the presence of these two that authenticates the Church’s rites, not what some priest decides, indulging his own preferences.

Keep in mind, then, that the private recasting of ritual introduced by an individual priest insults the dignity of the believer and lays the way open to individual and idiosyncratic forms in celebrations that are in fact the property of the whole Church.

The ministry of the priest is the ministry of the universal Church: its exercise is impossible without obedience, hierarchic communion, and the will to serve God and neighbor. The hierarchic character and sacramental power of the liturgy as well as the respectful service owed to the believing community demand that the priest fulfill his role in worship as the “faithful servant and steward of the mysteries of God.” (See 1 Cor 4:1.) without imposing any rite not decreed and sanctioned by the liturgical books.

I was thinking of my young Iowa friend and his indulgence for forty-minute Masses. I’m not sure that forty minutes for a Sunday liturgy is a reasonable expectation of the laity. But I’m sure that Tridentine mannerisms don’t quite make up for blurry-fast speech and the iundulgence of personal idiosyncracies.

It strikes me, and this is borne out by experience, that offenders against these prescriptions are not necessarily progressive clergy as a group. If I were to generally characterize liturgical abuse coming from priests, it would be those who are unable or unwilling to enter into the mystery of the Word and Sacrament they celebrate.

 

Liturgicae Instaurationes: Introduction, part 3

This post concludes our look at the introduction of Liturgicae Instaurationes. Rome calls out bishops, reminding us of episcopal responsibilities and duties with regard to the oversight of liturgy.

What seemed untimely during the process of the Consilium’s assiduous work on the reform has now become possible in view of all that has now been solidly and clearly established.

The first appeal must be made to the authority of the individual bishops; the Holy Spirit has chosen them to rule the Church of God (See Acts 20:28.) and they are “the chief stewards of the mysteries of God, and the overseers, promoters, and guardians of all liturgical life in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.”(Christus Dominus (Vat. II Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops) no. 15; see Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) art. 22.) They have the duty of governing, guiding, encouraging, or sometimes reproving, of lighting the way for the carrying out of true reform, and also of taking counsel, so that the whole Body of the Church may be able to move ahead single-mindedly and with the unity of charity in the diocese, the nation, and the entire world. Such efforts of the bishops are the more necessary and urgent because the link between liturgy and faith is so close that service to the one redounds to the other.

It might be said that we lacked enough bishops with a liturgical sensibility in the immediate post-conciliar era. On the other hand, these guys appointed to lead dioceses were presumably pretty smart, and the document does judge “taking counsel” as an episcopal virtue.

With the cooperation of their liturgical commissions, bishops should have complete information on the religious and social condition of the faithful in their care, of their spiritual needs, and of the ways most likely to help them; bishops should also use all the options the new rites provide. They will then be able to evaluate what favors or hampers true reform and with care and discernment to suggest and control courses of action in such a way that, all genuine needs being given their due, the entire undertaking will nevertheless evolve in accord with the norms set by the new liturgical laws.

Rome foresaw that bishops should be at the vanguard of using the new rite, including all of its options (experimentation, if you will) and be able to assess what works for the spiritual life of their people. Note the value placed in a natural evolution within the bounds set by liturgical law. The sense in 1970 was that a completed “project” was in no way the end point for liturgical reform, merely the next stage to assess the overall goals.

The bishops’ mastery of the knowledge needed greatly assists priests in the ministry they exercise in due hierarchic communion (Presyterorum Ordinus(Vat. II Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests), no. 15: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966) 11014-15; Sacrosanctum Oecumenicum Concilium Vaticanum II: Constitutiones Decreta, Declarationes 660.) and facilitates that obedience required as a fuller sign of worship and for the sanctification of souls.

More often, it is a few clergy, if not several lay people in a dicoese, who possess this liturgical competence. Again, collaboration and counsel are even more important.

With a view to making the bishop’s function more effective for an exact application of liturgical norms, especially those of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as well as for the sake of restoring discipline and order in the celebration of the Eucharist, center of the Church’s life, “a sign of unity and a bond of charity,”(SC art. 47.) it seems worthwhile to review the following principles and suggestions.

And over the thirteen sections of Liturgicae Instaurationes we will look at these “principles and suggestions” authored by the Consilium and assess a liturgical snapshot at the conclusion of the 60′s.