Church of the Most Sacred Heart |
|
Sacrosanctum Concilium:Why did the Mass change? |
|
Sacrosanctum Concilium: Why did the Mass change?
The Council dominates the modern Church, yet it remains something of an enigma. How often we hear people explaining how ‘Vatican II said this’ or how ‘Vatican II changed all that,’ and then find, on closer inspection, that it doesn’t bear much resemblance to the real Vatican II. Some people are happy to talk about Vatican II without actually having studied the Council documents. Most Catholics are aware, however, of the ‘big four’: the Dogmatic Constitutions on the Church (Lumen Gentium), Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) and the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). And it is these four important documents that your series of talks are focussing on. For most people, Vatican II boils down to one thing: the changes in the liturgy and most especially in the Mass. This is hardly surprising. Vatican decrees concerning the ‘two sources’ of Revelation or systematic atheism don’t exactly capture the popular imagination. But the liturgy is something very different. It is the ‘source and summit’ of every Christian’s life. For most believers, it’s the main contact they have with the institutional Church. The very word ‘liturgy’ comes from the Greek ‘leitourgia’, meaning ‘public work’ or ‘service in the interest of the people’. So, for an ancient Greek, ‘liturgy’ might have involved putting on a public entertainment or providing equipment for a warship – all in the interest of the people. Later it’s meaning became increasingly linked to Divine Worship and so it entered the Church’s vocabulary. Liturgy is an action done in the public domain for the glorification of God and the sanctification of the people in Christ. And since it’s in the public domain, Christian liturgy has affected the lives of countless millions down the ages. You can see this in the way worship and the liturgical year saturated everyday life in the past and the way words, metaphors and images passed from the liturgy into the language of even the humblest classes. Because it’s in the public domain and at the centre of our Christian lives, the exact ‘how’ and ‘what’ of the liturgy can lead to different opinions, even controversy. Preparing a talk on Sacrosanctum Concilium (4th December 1963) [hereafter SC] is like entering a minefield. Most people admit that the liturgical changes following Vatican II were poorly implemented and produced mixed results. John Paul II himself admitted that ‘shadows are not lacking’ in the Council’s liturgical reform. However, there is great disagreement about exactly what the Council tried to do in the first place – generally speaking, people are divided between thinking the reforms went too far and thinking that they did not go far enough. This evening there are probably as many different views of how the Mass should ideally be celebrated as there are individuals in this room – we all have our liturgical hobbyhorses whether it’s Gregorian chant or lay ministers. So, in this brief talk I’ll try to be as objective and as honest as possible. We’ll be reflecting on exactly what SC said and what has happened over the past forty years. And that reflection, I hope, will be continued in the time for discussion afterwards. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND SC was strongly influenced by the so-called ‘liturgical movement’, which had been growing within the Church since the early nineteenth century, and was particularly associated with the revival of Benedictine monasticism after the French Revolution. Abbeys like Solesmes, Beuron and Maredsous became great liturgical centres. The aim of the movement was, firstly, to increase people’s understanding of the liturgy. Much scholarship was produced, and the publication of hand missals and other books allowed the laity to follow and pray the Mass with the priest. The movement also promoted what St Pius X referred to as the ‘active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church.’ This led to the introduction of frequent Communion at the beginning of the last century – after all, what better way can we ‘participate’ in the Sacred Mysteries than by regularly receiving the Lord Himself in the Blessed Sacrament? However, as time went on, the Liturgical Movement became guilty of some excesses and, in 1947, Pope Pius XII intervened with his Encyclical Letter, Mediator Dei. He wrote, ‘while We derive no little satisfaction from the wholesome results of the movement... duty obliges Us to give serious attention to this “revival” as it is advocated in some quarters and to take proper steps to preserve it at the outset from excess or outright perversion.’ Among other things, the Pope condemned the tendency towards ‘archaeologism’ or ‘antiquarianism’ – seeking to restore the liturgy of the early Church for its own sake. This implied that the liturgy had once had a ‘pure’ form (around the fourth or fifth century) and that subsequent developments had tarnished this original purity; in other words, that the older a liturgical practice, the better it was. Pope Pius wrote: ‘the liturgy of early ages is worthy of veneration; but an ancient custom is not to be considered better, either in itself or in relation to later times and circumstances, just because it has the flavour of antiquity...The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy.’ Nevertheless, in the years leading up to Vatican II, there were a number of important changes in the liturgy. Pius XII authorised a new translation of the psalms for the Divine Office (1945) and introduced a new rite of Holy Week, including the restoration of the Easter Vigil (1955). Congregations were encouraged to join in the responses at Mass (originally, it had just been the servers) and to sing vernacular hymns. The stage was set for SC. BASIC PRINCIPLES
(SC#1-13) The Liturgy is, above all, something sacred. It’s not merely a celebration of the community, something man-centred. Rather, it is the action of God. This is important to remember, because sometimes our services can appear very inward-looking – what the American Benedictine, Aidan Kavanaugh, describes as ‘an act of gathering and hospitality…so as to produce the approved sort of community which celebrates middle-class values of joining, meeting and “speaking out.”’ We can also find ourselves following an ‘entertainment ethos,’ making the liturgy fun so as to attract teenagers and young families. These might be good intentions, but the whole point is not to make the liturgy serve our purposes but for us to serve the liturgy, as it has been handed to us by the Church. It is important to remember that Christ is always present in the Church’s liturgical celebrations. SC teaches us that He is present in the liturgy in four different ways : · Christ is
present in the person of the minister. That’s one of the reasons
why priests wear special vestments at Mass: to show that it not just Fr
Dick or Fr Harry celebrating the Mass but Fr Dick or Fr Harry who is acting
in the person of Christ, so that when the priest consecrates the bread
and wine it is really Christ consecrating them: ‘This is my Body…’,
‘This is my Blood…’. ACTIVE PARTICIPATION (SC#14-20) So far, SC has been re-iterating the traditional teaching of the Church, drawn from early liturgical sources and the Fathers – the footnotes allude to the likes of St Ignatius of Antioch and St Augustine. But then, once the ground is cleared with these basic principles, we come to the very leitmotif of SC: Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people’, is their right and duty by reason of their baptism. Drawing on the teaching of St Pius X mentioned earlier, this paragraph is at the centre of SC – everyone should have a ‘full, conscious, and active participation’ in the sacred mysteries; that no-one should be there ‘as strangers or silent spectators.’ Many commentators interpret this as a critique of the Mass as it was celebrated at the time of the Council – where, they would say, people simply watched the priest say his Mass, muttering Latin with his back turned to them; where there was anything but active participation. Modern liturgy may be very different from that of the past, but we mustn’t patronise our forebears. The Mass meant everything to them. You can see that in the risks that many English lay people took in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to shelter underground priests and organise secret Masses. For many it cost them their livelihoods, even their lives. Dr Eamon Duffy has convincingly shown just what participation meant for the common folk on the eve of the Reformation. They may have been divided from the altar by a rood screen, but this screen was seen not so much as a barrier but as a window into eternity. They may have had little active involvement in the ceremonies of Mass but there was a whole array of resources to help them pray the Mass – like the rhyming Lay Folk’s Mass Book of the fourteenth century or the saying of the rosary. If this was the case at the eve of the Reformation, the ‘active participation’ of the faithful was even more impressive at the eve of the Council, thanks to the Liturgical Movement and its beautifully produced pocket Missals. From my reading of SC, this section on ‘active participation’ is a statement of principle. Please make sure, it is saying, that the faithful have their part to play in the Mass. The best way to achieve ‘full, conscious, and active participation’ is not a manic burst of activity, so that everyone is doing something – but rather through an active participation that is primarily spiritual (praying the Mass) and, to a degree, intellectual (understanding the Mass). SC speaks of a ‘needed programme of instruction’ through which pastors will make sure that people understand the Mass so that they can truly participate in it. Man is body and soul. The ‘whole man’ needs to be involved in worship. Whereas, in the past, the danger was to concentrate on the soul, without involving our bodies, today it is the belief that the body is everything in worship. Hence we get ‘busy’ Masses where there is much activity but little contemplation. Of course, we can participate in a more active sense – reading or serving or acting as an extraordinary minister – this is all well and good but it presupposes a spiritual, prayerful participation that is always primary. SC itself says that ‘in order that the sacred liturgy may produce its full effect, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their thoughts match their words, and that they co-operate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain.’ Pope Benedict XVI is quite clear about what truly active participation in the Mass means. It is worth looking at what he wrote in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, published five years ago and well worth a read. Part-icipation, he points out, refers to ‘a principal action in which everyone has a “part.”’ What is the principal action (actio) of the Mass? Quite simply - the Eucharistic Prayer, in which God changes the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, thus renewing the Sacrifice of Calvary. ‘The real “action” in the liturgy in which we are all supposed to participate is the action of God himself.’ And how do we do that? We need to pray that the Sacrifice of the Mass truly becomes our sacrifice, my sacrifice. We all have a part in offering the Sacrifice of the Mass – remember those words of the priest at the Offertory, ‘Pray, my brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.’ Our essential role at Mass is to offer ourselves – all that we have and are – to God; to offer Him our joys and sorrows, our work and our talents, our ambitions and concerns - to put all these things (symbolically) on the paten and in the chalice as it is offered, to ask God for His blessing and His assistance. As Pope Benedict says, ‘there is only one action [in the Mass], which is at the same time his and ours – ours because we have become “one body and spirit” with him. The uniqueness of the Eucharistic liturgy lies in the fact that God himself is acting and that we are drawn into that action of God. Everything else is, therefore, secondary.’ ‘If the liturgy degenerates into general activity,’ the Holy Father continues, ‘then we have radically misunderstood the “theo-drama” of the liturgy and lapsed almost into parody…Instead one must be led toward the essential actio that makes the liturgy what it is, toward the transforming power of God, who wants, through what happens in the liturgy, to transform us and the world.’ Indeed, ‘anyone who grasps this will easily see that it is not now a matter of looking at or toward the priest, but of looking together toward the Lord and going out to meet him.’ PROPOSALS FOR REFORM (SC#21-40) SC then goes into specific proposals for reform. Let’s look at them one by one: 1. Firstly, ‘the rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished.’ The rite of Mass was indeed revised in the Missal of 1969, as we’ll see later. 2. Next, SC gets down to more practical proposals for reform. ‘The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly,’ it says, ‘ so that a richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s Word.’ This is a notable achievement of the Council: we now hear selections from every part of the Bible. The cycle of readings before the Council was chiefly drawn from the New Testament – usually an Epistle and the Gospel, with the occasional prophet getting a look-in. Now, the readings operate via a three-year cycle for Sundays and a two-year one for weekdays. For the Sundays, a different Gospel is chosen each year and read through Sunday by Sunday, with a First Reading chosen to shed light on it. This way, the people read through the Gospels over the three-year cycle. To benefit from this new lectionary, however, it is vital to come prepared: to read and reflect upon the readings before the Mass (in the same as one would prepare before Mass to receive Communion). Otherwise it is easy to get bogged down with the words or to let them go over your head! 3. Then, to ‘open up’ the treasures of the Bible, the priest preaches a homily – which SC sees as ‘a highly esteemed’ part of the Mass, only omitted ‘for a serious reason.’ 4. It was also proposed to restore the ancient ‘Prayer of the Faithful’ or ‘Bidding Prayers’ – in which ‘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’. Again, this is a reform introduced to increase ‘active participation’ (i.e. praying the Mass) and to add some flexibility, especially concerning the needs of a given time. 5. Then comes the fifth proposal: one of the most talked-about changes of Vatican II – the introduction of a vernacular liturgy: ‘in Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue’. The introduction of the vernacular has borne much fruit over the past forty years. It has promoted an increased involvement by the faithful in the liturgy since all the texts can now be understood instantly. This is especially important in the changeable parts of the Mass: the Liturgy of the Word, for example. The unfortunate thing is that the introduction of a vernacular liturgy has effectively rung the death knell for the use of Latin. Contrary to popular belief, the Council did not abolish the Latin Mass. It stated that ‘the use of the Latin language is to be preserved’ and that ‘steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them’ Indeed, Blessed John XXIII, the ‘Father’ of the Council, had dedicated an Apostolic Constitution, Veterum Sapientia in 1962 (the year the Council opened) on the very subject of the preservation of Latin in the Church and the official Council Sessions, held in St Peter’s, were conducted in Latin. However, the de-latinisation in the Church has corresponded to the general de-latinisation – I am part of a generation that was never taught Latin at school, and so I had to pick up the pieces rather hurriedly in seminary! Why all the fuss? First of all, Latin was a common language that was a further sign of our unity in Christ. Whether a priest came from Manhattan or Mongolia, up until forty years ago they could have worshipped or communicated together in Latin. Moreover, Latin was the Church’s ‘sacred language’. All the great religions of the world have sacred languages – normally dead or semi-dead tongues no longer spoken in an everyday sense but reserved for divine worship. The Russian Orthodox Church uses Old Church Slavonic; Jews all over the world use Hebrew; Islam has a special place for Arabic. These liturgical languages are ‘timeless’ (so that the words do not have to be updated every few years) and they speak of the transcendent. It is interesting to note that just as the Church was being de-latinised, increasing numbers of young people were turning to the mystical traditions of the East, where they were quite happy to chant mantras in Sanskrit (the Hindu tongue) without really understanding the exact sense of the words they were uttering: all they knew was that they concerned another world, another plane of reality. And that’s the whole point. A true implementation of SC would make Latin a more common part of our Church life rather than an exotic (and sometimes controversial) rarity. At least in this diocese – and especially in Central London – there are many opportunities to tap into our Latin liturgical tradition. The vernacular liturgy is still in its early days. One problem is the quality of the English translations currently in use, although they are in the process of being revised by ICEL (International Commission of English in the Liturgy) with oversight from a new body called Vox Clara. Let’s hope they do a good job because some of our prayers are pretty banal and not very accurate as translations of the Latin originals. This is a great pity since English can be a very beautiful and powerful language – just think of the works of Shakespeare and Dickens and, indeed, the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer. The English here is ‘timeless’ and perhaps sets our vernacular liturgy with a particular benchmark. 6. Returning to our consideration of SC, the sixth proposal concerns Holy Communion and builds on the teachings of St Pius X. SC recommends that the people receive the Eucharistic elements that have been consecrated at that Mass. Of course, this isn’t always possible, but it’s a further emphasis on Communion as an essential part of the Mass. We might take that for granted today but a hundred years ago things were very different: often the only person to receive Communion at Mass was the priest himself and those who were communicating would receive the Sacred Host at the altar rails in a brief ceremony outside the Mass, almost as an after thought. Moreover, until the time of Pius X, most people received Communion occasionally – often only once a year, at Easter. In a similar vein, SC says that the Faithful can receive Communion under both kinds, ‘when the bishops think fit’. This is, of course, a fuller expression of the Sacrament of the Eucharist – Christ did command us to eat this bread and drink this cup. But the occasions are limited for practical reasons: there is, for example, the danger of spilling the Precious Blood if it is given to entire congregations or the risk of consecrating too much wine. The practice has developed in the past forty years and new norms have been issued both by the Vatican and the various Bishops’ Conferences of the world. 7. The seventh proposal
is very basic though very important. It describes the Mass as ‘one
single act of worship’ despite being comprised of two parts: the
Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It urged pastors
to remind their flock that they should participate in the entire Mass
– and not to be tempted to only arrive at the Gospel and then leave
straight after Communion. Earlier we spoke about the centrality of spiritual
participation in the liturgy. So, not only should people attend the whole
Mass, they should spend time beforehand in preparation and afterwards
in thanksgiving. Further chapters in SC deal with sacred music and art. Let’s briefly look at these. The Council pays particular attention to sacred music among the arts, calling it ‘a treasure of immeasurable value’ and ‘an integral part of the solemn liturgy.’ Indeed, as far as SC is concerned, the liturgy should ideally be a sung liturgy. But what sort of music? Vatican II is pretty clear: ‘the treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with very great care…especially in cathedral churches.’ ‘The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as proper to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded…’ . It seems that you hear chant everywhere these days – on TV and radio, at concerts, in people’s homes, even in nightclubs! You may remember the CD, Canto Gregoriano, topping the pop charts a few years ago, or the interest following the recent BBC documentary series, The Monastery. Chant is hot stuff, but how often do we hear it sung in our churches? SC goes on to affirm the pipe organ as the traditional instrument for sacred music, though it allows other instruments to be used providing they ‘accord with the dignity of the temple.’ Moreover, the Council encourages new musical compositions, especially those to be sung by the people. Vatican II also shows a similar concern for the visual arts. Indeed, some of the greatest works of human genius were made for the adornment of churches: architectural gems like St Peter’s Basilica; altar-paintings like those by Caravaggio; sculptures like Michelangelo’s pieta. SC promoted the continuation of this alliance between the Church and the art of the day. But this did not mean the needless destruction of the old, as clearly happened over the post-conciliar years. Although it encouraged simplicity rather than extravagance, it said that ‘Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or allowed to deteriorate.’ SC also stated that ‘the practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they may be venerated by the faithful is to be firmly maintained.’ Thus, modern churches that look more like sport gymnasiums and contain hardly any images are as a contrary to the ‘spirit’ of the Council as a church crammed full with sacred art of a doubtful taste. Evaluation – putting these principles into practice So, as you can see, SC is an important document that synthesises the Church’s teaching on the liturgy – especially those insights rediscovered by the ‘liturgical movement’. Its proposals for reform aimed to increase an active participation in the liturgy. It hoped that people would truly pray the Mass rather than simply pray at Mass, as St Pius X himself recommended. A simplified Rite, a richer tapestry of Scriptural readings, the introduction of some vernacular, bidding prayers that addressed the needs of the times, Communion under both kinds and Concelebration for special occasions – these were all designed to heighten the dignity and prayerfulness of the Mass. To put these proposals
into action, Paul VI established a committee (the Consilium) made up of
cardinals and ‘experts,’ under the direction of Archbishop
Bugnini. The Consilium quickly produced a new liturgy, which marked a
new chapter in liturgical reform. Up until the Council, liturgical reform
had been gradual and organic – the odd addition or subtraction,
while maintaining the same structure. The new liturgy of Vatican II was
a total revision, issued from the committee table. Scholarly research
and pastoral expediency were given priority over any notion of organic
growth. Radical additions were made - for the first time, for example,
there was a choice of Eucharistic Prayers, gathered from various sources.
At the same time, many elements were discarded – the prayers at
the foot of the altar, some of the offertory prayers and prayers before
Communion and the Last Gospel were all dismissed as repetitive or late
additions to the Roman Rite. As the present Holy Father has pointed out,
there was ‘a tendency to archaeological liturgy’ – ‘people
could no longer grasp that even the innovations of the Middle Ages…were
genuinely legitimate developments.’ The ‘committee-style’ reform of the liturgy had its good and bad points. Much of it followed the proposals of the Council, but the liturgy was in many ways a new creation rather than an organic development. As Owen Chadwick puts it, ‘liturgies are not made, they grow in the devotion of the centuries.’ Thirty-five years on, we can see that much pain was caused by the speed with which the changes happened and the lack of effective explanations. Many confused Catholics voted with their feet. Some went too far in interpreting the spirit of the Council and much was left to the personal creativity of the individual priest. I heard of one Mass that celebrated the surprises of life – the priest made his entrance by jumping out of a box, dressed as a clown! It just goes to show how important it is to return to the letter of SC in order to discover its true spirit. There were many factors that need to be remembered when considering the way the liturgical reforms were implemented. Some writers thought that the awful experience of World War Two and the Holocaust called for a simpler, even austere liturgy. Somehow, it was claimed, a solemn liturgy with splendid music now seemed rather pretentious and far removed from the grim reality of everyday post-war life. Perhaps that’s why many churches built after the war seem so stark and simple – the architecture was attempting to identify with the poverty and suffering that apparently characterised the period. Meanwhile, in the academic world, the growth in historical criticism led to an increasing embarrassment with the supernatural and the miraculous. Biblical scholars stressed the literal sense of Scripture and studied its historical and cultural context, while neglecting its more mystical meanings. Time-honoured popular devotions were discontinued (even though these are praised by the Council Fathers) and churches were spring-cleaned of anything that appeared ‘superstitious’ or old-fashioned, such as relics and statues. One hears stories of parishioners saving sacred objects from skips outside churches or of precious vestments being sold in flea markets. Meanwhile, the ecumenical movement sought to minimize the differences between Catholic and Protestant worship, and some (including, it seems, Pope Paul VI himself) saw the new liturgy as a vehicle of ecumenism. There was less emphasis on the sacrificial aspect of the Mass (which distinguished Catholics from Protestants) and a new concern for unity in the cycles of Scripture readings and even in the use of Eucharistic Prayers. Indeed, there were many similarities between the Council and the Protestant Reformation – with the key difference that it happened within the Church rather than outside it. I was flicking through a book by Mgr Christopher Lightbound, former VG of Shrewsbury, the other day, and he observes that ‘in certain aspects there is an exact parallel: for instance, the change from Latin in the liturgy to the vernacular, and the recommendation of Holy Communion under both kinds. Again, the Reformers insisted on the scriptural sources of Christian doctrine, and on encouraging the availability and use of the Word of God through prayer and study. Vatican II may be said to have moved in the same direction.’ Moreover, as old Empires crumbled in Asia and Africa, the Western Liturgy seemed to be suggestive of the old days of colonialism and liturgists became more and more concerned with ‘inculturation’ – the ideal of a liturgy rooted in the customs of the local peoples rather than in the traditions of a Universal (but very European) Church. Finally, it is worth pointing out an obvious but important factor: the liturgical reforms happened during the Swinging Sixties! This was a time of great optimism and hope, as reflected in documents such as Gaudium et Spes, but also a period of rebellion against authority and traditional structures. Paul VI had to struggle with the spirit of the times, most notably when Humanae Vitae (1968) led to widespread controversy and dissent. The sixties and seventies were not a stable environment to produce far-reaching liturgical reforms. It is not surprising that things spiralled out of control. Much has been written on the liturgy over the years and sometimes it’s hard to see the wood for the trees. The ‘New Mass’ with which we are all familiar is still in its infancy – Church reform never happens overnight and Councils can take decades, if not centuries in being truly implemented. We are still waiting for the fruit of Vatican II to ripen and mature; we are still waiting for the dust to settle. Besides, much has happened recently. A new edition of the Missale Romanum (in Latin) has appeared and we eagerly await the English translation. Meanwhile, documents like last year’s Redemptionem Sacramentum (2004) and the new General Instruction to the Roman Missal clarify the authentic liturgical tradition of the Church. Under the direction of Benedict XVI, himself a noted theologian and liturgical scholar, we can be hopeful that this process will continue and, indeed, accelerate. The Holy Father sums up so much when he says: ‘if the Liturgy appears first of all as the workshop for our activity, then what is essential is being forgotten: God. For the Liturgy is not about us, but about God. Forgetting about God is the most imminent danger of our age. As against this, the Liturgy should be setting up a sign of God’s presence. Yet what is happening, if the habit of forgetting about God makes itself at home in the Liturgy itself, and if in the Liturgy we are only thinking of ourselves? In any and every liturgical reform, and every liturgical celebration, the primacy of God should be kept in view first and foremost.’ It’s important to stress that the Mass of Paul VI is the same as the Mass of the ages. At every Mass, - whether it’s in Latin, English or Serbo-Croat, whether it’s said by a priest on his own or by hundreds of concelebrants – we give thanks to God, we offer up with Christ the one, holy and perfect sacrifice and we receive His Sacred Body and Blood. It’s crucial to understand this. The Mass has changed in many externals over the last forty years, but in one sense it has not changed at all. Perhaps most of all, though, we need to realise that the liturgy is a means to an end: the glorification of God and the sanctification of man in Christ. And so, in this most controversial area of liturgy, we should always try to follow the old dictum: In essentials, unity.
(C)
|
|
| ©2005 Church of the Most Sacred Heart Ruislip. Middlesex HA4 8NN | |