Evaluating Liturgical Reform: Four Criteria Derived from a Theological Concept of Tradition: Volume 84 (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia) [1 ed.] 9042949813, 9789042949812

Citation preview

Evaluating Liturgical Reform Four Criteria Derived from a Theological Concept of Tradition

Johan te Velde OSB

PEETERS

EVALUATING LITURGICAL REFORM

ANNUA NUNTIA LOVANIENSIA

LXXXIV

Evaluating Liturgical Reform Four Criteria Derived from a Theological Concept of Tradiction

Johan te Velde OSB Translated from the Dutch by Rebecca Braun OSC Editing by Thomas McLean

PEETERS

LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2022

For my teachers Ferdinand de Grijs and Herman Wegman, in grateful memory

The study was completed in the summer of 2017 and defended as a doctoral thesis under supervision of prof. dr. Joris Geldhof on 13 October, 2017, at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the Catholic University in Leuven. The translation and editing took place from September 2018 to July 2021. Gratitude is extended to the following funds and benefactors, without whom this translation would not have been possible. Paul de Gruyter Foundation Diocese of Rotterdam Diocese of Groningen-Leeuwarden Mariafonds Leeuwarden Vereniging voor Latijnse Liturgie Sormani Fonds Nijmegen Katholieke Openbare Bibliotheek Leeuwarden Stichting Amerlanderhof Leeuwarden Stichting Yep Zeinstra Leeuwarden Makelaardij Hoekstra Leeuwarden Mgr. drs. Herman Woorts Sjouke Bosma

Cover illustration: Dirk Bouts, Last Supper (1464-1468), St. Peter’s Church – Collection M Museum (S/58/B ), Leuven Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher © Uitgeverij Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium) ISBN 978-90-429-4981-2 eISBN 978-90-429-4982-9 D/2022/0602/101

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Part One Theoretical Explorations on Liturgical Reform and a Theological Concept of Tradition Chapter I: What Is Liturgical Reform?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. A Definition of the Term “Liturgical Reform”. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. What Is Reform? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2. What Is Liturgical Reform? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2. The Aim of Liturgical Reform in Connection with the View on Liturgy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Chapter II: Tradition as a Divine-Human Reality . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1. Three Elements within Tradition, i.e. “God’s Self-gift,” “Mediation in Tradition,” and “Human Appropriation,” in Y. Congar and W. Kasper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2. Y. Congar and W. Kasper on the Relationship between God’s Self-giving, Mediations, and Human Appropriation as a Form of Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1. God’s Self-gift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 a) The Two Theologians on God’s Self-giving in Christ. . . 24 b) Kasper’s Eschatological Accent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 c) Congar’s Emphasis on the Transmission of the Reality of Salvation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2. Mediations: Monuments or Witnesses of Tradition. . . . . . . 30 3. Various Aspects of Appropriation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 a) Appropriation, Believing, and Understanding. . . . . . . . . 34 b) The Role of the Holy Spirit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 c) Within the Community of the Church. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3. Similarities and Differences between the Thought of Y. Congar and That of W. Kasper on Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

VI

CONTENTS

4. A Theological Concept of Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 1. Tradition: Divine-human Reality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 a) The Process of Tradition: Work of Humans and of the Holy Spirit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 b) The Monument of Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 c) The Eschatological Nature of Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2. The Adequacy of the Concept “Monument of Tradition”: Change and Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 a) Criticism of the Concept “Tradition”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 b) The Identity of Christian Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Chapter III: Liturgy as a Form of Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 1. Liturgy as Transfer, a Form of Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 2. Liturgy and Salvation History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 1. Salvation History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 2. Liturgy as a Sign. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3. The Efficacy of the Liturgy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 3. Liturgy in the Present, between Past and Future. . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4. Liturgy as a Source for Doctrine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 1. Liturgy as an Expression of the Faith of the Church. . . . . . 78 2. Liturgy as a locus theologicus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 3. Liturgy as a Condition for Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 5. Liturgy as Tradition’s Main Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Chapter IV: Liturgical Stagnation: Factors and Views . . . . . . . . 91 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 1. Stagnation in Liturgical Celebration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 2. Factors Responsible for Liturgical Stagnation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 1. Decrease of the Role of Scripture and Preaching . . . . . . . . . 95 2. Decreased Awareness of Sacramentality and Symbolism. . . . 97 3. Legalism and Rubricism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 4. Decreased Sense of Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 5. Clericalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 6. Weakening of the Relationship between Liturgy and Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 7. Final Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103



CONTENTS

VII

3. Views on Liturgical Stagnation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4. Reforming the Books, Forming the Faithful. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Chapter V: The Liturgical Tradition Process and Its Stagnation.113 1. Criticism of the Liturgical Reform: Lack of Sacrality. . . . . . . . 113 2. The Two Poles of the Liturgical Tradition Process. . . . . . . . . . 117 3. Liturgy as Remembrance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 4. Remembrance and Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 1. The Community’s Remembrance Makes Use of Liturgical Tradition as Monument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 2. The Community’s Remembrance Is Part of Tradition as a Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 3. The Community’s Remembrance Is Taken up into Tradition as Monument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5. Stagnation in the Liturgical Tradition Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 6. The Stagnation Factors in the Liturgical Tradition Process Separately. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 1. Within the Framework of the Mediating Monument of Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 2. Within the Framework of God’s Self-gift in Christ. . . . . . . 127 a) Scripture and Preaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 b) Sacrament and Symbol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 3. Within the Framework of Human Appropriation . . . . . . . . 129 a) Scripture and Preaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 b) Sacrament and Symbol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 c) Legalism and Rubricism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 d) Decreased Sense of Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 e) Clericalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 f) Weakening of the Relationship with Culture. . . . . . . . . . 132 7. The Other Side of Stagnation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 1. The Liturgical Tradition as a Reality of Mystery. . . . . . . . . 135 2. The Eschatological Dimension of the Liturgical Tradition. . 138 3. The Stagnation Factors in a Different Light. . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 a) The Role of Scripture and Preaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 b) Sacramentality and Symbolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 c) The Legal Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 d) Sense of Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 e) The Ministerial Dimension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 f) The Relationship between Liturgy and Culture. . . . . . . . 143

VIII

CONTENTS

Chapter VI: Evaluation Criteria for Liturgical Reform on the Basis of the Concept of Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 1. Criteria for Liturgical Reform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 2. Christ’s Reality of Salvation Is Transmitted Integrally, in Word and Sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 3. A Person Can Understand and Experience the Liturgy as Being Relevant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 4. The Liturgy of the Previous Generations Is the Same as the Current Liturgy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 5. The Liturgy Is Marked by a Gradual Process of Growth . . . . . 158 6. Four Criteria, Combined and Balanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Part Two Evaluation of Liturgical Reforms by Means of the Concept of Tradition: Six Case Studies Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Chapter VII: The Reformed Opening Rite in the Roman Missal of 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 1. The Introductory Rite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 2. Origin of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 1. History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 2. Form and Nature of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. . . 172 3. Change of the Introductory Rite in a Few Steps. . . . . . . . . . . . 174 4. Evaluation of the Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 1. Is Christ’s Reality of Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 4. Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development?.187 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Chapter VIII: The Reform of the Liturgy of the Hours: ­Compline.189 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 1. Brief Overview of the History of the Liturgy of the Hours. . . . 190



CONTENTS

IX

2. The Changes in the Compline of the Church. . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 1. Abolition of the Collatio and Accompanying Blessing . . . . 200 2. Opening and Penitential Rite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 3. Relocation of the Hymn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 4. New Selection of Psalms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 5. Multiple Short Readings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 6. Abolition of the Verse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 7. Abolition of Various Prayers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 8. Multiple Closing Prayers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 9. Adaptation of the Blessing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 10. Marian Antiphon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 3. The Changes to the Monastic Compline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 4. Evaluation of the Reforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 1. Is Christ’s Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy?.210 2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 4. Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development?.218 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Chapter IX: The Reform of the Liturgy of Confirmation. . . . . . 221 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 1. Brief Overview of the History of Liturgy of Confirmation. . . . 222 2. The Changes to the Confirmation Liturgy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 1. The Changes in Context and Circumstances. . . . . . . . . . . . 234 2. The Changes to the Imposition of Hands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 3. The Changes to the Anointing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 4. The Changes to Certain Other Liturgical Elements. . . . . . . 240 3. Evaluation of the Reforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 1. Is Christ’s Reality of Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 4. Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

X

CONTENTS

Chapter X: The Reform of the Solemnity of Epiphany. . . . . . . . 251 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 1. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 2. The Changes in the Formulary of the Mass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 1. Abolition of Vigil and Octave and Restoration of the Vigil. 256 2. Fixed or Movable Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 3. Addition of Second Reading and Responsorial Psalm . . . . . 259 4. Addition of a Line in the Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 5. Replacement of the Prayer after Communion . . . . . . . . . . . 261 6. The Solemn Blessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 7. Proclamation of Variable Feast Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 3. Evaluation of the Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 1. Is Christ’s Reality of Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 4. Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development?.272 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Chapter XI: The Reform of the Calendar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 1. Brief Overview of the History of the Roman Calendar of Saints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 2. The Reforms of the Calendar of Saints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 1. Nomenclature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 2. Deleted Celebrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 3. New Entries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 4. Relocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 5. Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .292 3. Evaluation of the Reforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 1. Is Christ’s Reality of Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298



CONTENTS

XI

4. Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Chapter XII: The Reforms in the Ritual of Monastic P ­ rofession. 303 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 1. Moments in the History of the Monastic Profession . . . . . . . . 304 2. The Reforms in the Ritual of Solemn Profession . . . . . . . . . . . 311 1. A Comparison between Official Publications. . . . . . . . . . . . 312 2. A Comparison between Liturgy Booklets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 3. Evaluation of the Reforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 1. Is Christ’s Reality of Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 4. Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 Chapter XIII: Finally: A Closer Look at the Evaluation Criteria.331 1. Each of the Four Evaluation Criteria after Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 1. The Criterion of the Source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 2. The Criterion of Appropriation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 3. The Criterion of Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 4. The Criterion of Graduality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 2. The Interrelationship of the Four Evaluation Criteria. . . . . . . . 336 1. The Hermeneutical Role of the Second and Third Criteria. 336 2. The Second and Third Criteria as Rivals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 3. The Fourth Criterion as a Method of Working That Proceeds from the Second and the Third. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 4. The Third and Fourth Criteria Closely Related. . . . . . . . . . 338 3. The Dialogical Objectivity of the Evaluation Criteria. . . . . . . . 338 4. The Four Criteria Complementarily Express the One ­Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

Introduction “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you …” (1 Cor 11:23).1 When the apostle Paul speaks of the liturgy of the Christian community in Corinth, he uses the terms “to receive” and “to deliver.” In Paul’s view, liturgy is something that is received from those who went before and is subsequently passed on. Liturgy is a matter of tradition, a process of transmitting what has been received in Christ to every new generation. When Christians come together to celebrate their faith liturgically, they find themselves in a process of reception and transmission. Tradition means, on the one hand, being true to the origin, to the reality of the mystery of Christ, but on the other hand also openness to contemporary experience. Liturgy cannot be passed on unchanged, but rather is undergoing continually all kinds of changes and adaptations to new circumstances. Liturgical changes that are consciously introduced, are referred to with the term “liturgical reforms”; in the course of history, this has been a frequent occurrence. This study investigates the evaluation of such reforms of Christian worship to test the main hypothesis: that an effective evaluation of liturgical reforms is based on the traditional nature of the liturgy. Just as liturgy is a form of tradition, reforming the liturgy must also be viewed as a form of tradition. Evaluating the manner of celebrating and experiencing liturgy should then also be done on the basis of criteria derived from this process of tradition. The concrete context of this study is the revision of the Roman Catholic liturgy by order of the Second Vatican Council. It considers only the Roman rite as it is celebrated in the Western Church, leaving aside other rites, either within or outside of the Roman Catholic Church. This liturgical reform was a project of unprecedented magnitude. The entire Roman liturgy, as and insofar as it is set down in liturgical books, was drastically renewed in a relatively short period of time, roughly between 1964 and 1980. The liturgy of the Eucharist, the Liturgy of the Hours, the sacraments and sacramentals, feast days and seasons of the liturgical 1  Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· Translation: English Standard Version (ESV).

2 INTRODUCTION year, perspectives on church buildings and church music – everything was significantly revised. New liturgical books were published in Latin and translated as quickly as possible, so that the reformed liturgy could be celebrated in the vernacular everywhere. In each place, people worked on the various things that were necessary in order to celebrate this new liturgy: informing and forming priests and faithful; composing and learning new liturgical music; inviting and forming the faithful to actively and consciously participate in and take on liturgical roles – these are only a few of the many challenges that were taken up. Soon, considerable differences also became apparent in the appreciation which there was for this reformed liturgy. Opinions varied greatly. For some, there were objections, not least because of the loss of a mystical and sacred atmosphere; for others, there was enthusiasm for the new form of religious experience and the stronger sense of community that was expressed in the celebrations.2 Disagreement existed regarding the extent to which the liturgy can be adapted to modern people. There was also criticism of the way that the reforms came about. Some people reproached the Church for the alleged fact that the process of liturgical development had given way for products from behind a writing desk,3 that it was implemented too hastily and not enough as a process of growth, others missed the opportunity to let liturgy develop naturally from people and their communities.4 The five decades since the liturgical renewal began, and especially the second half of that time have seen an intense and often fierce debate about the value and meaning of liturgical reform.5 In this context, the following questions were also raised: How and to what extent do liturgical renewals come about? How  For reactions at an early stage of the liturgical reforms, see “Relationes super reformationis liturgicae progressionem,” Notitiae 4 (1968): 114-116. 3  Joseph Ratzinger, “Liturgie – wandelbar oder unwandelbar? Fragen an Joseph Rat­ zinger” (1977), in idem, Theologie der Liturgie, Gesammelte Schriften 11 (Freiburg i.Br., Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 2008), 615-621, at 615. 4  Gerard Lukken, Rituals in Abundance: Critical Reflections on the Place, Form and Identity of Christian Ritual in Our Culture (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 333ff. 5  A few witnesses of and participants in the debate: M. Francis Mannion, “The Catholicity of the Liturgy: Shaping a New Agenda,” in Beyond the Prosaic: Renewing the Liturgical Movement, ed. S. Caldecott (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 11-48; John F. Baldovin SJ, Reforming the Liturgy: A Response to the Critics (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008); Albert Gerhards, Erneuerung kirchlichen Lebens aus dem Gottesdienst: Beiträge zur Reform der Liturgie, Praktische Theologie heute 120 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012); Andrea Grillo, Beyond Pius V: Conflicting Interpretations of the Liturgical Reform (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013); Patrick Prétot OSB, “Vers une intelligence renouvelée de la réforme liturgique de Vatican II,” Transversalités: Revue de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 137 (avril-juin 2016): 37-48, at 38ff. 2

INTRODUCTION 3

i­mportant was the role of reforms in the history of the liturgy, and did these take place gradually or abruptly? In many places, the liturgical renewal took the shape of adaptation to local circumstances and wishes. Liturgical inculturation gave room to the ideal of a liturgy that represents the life and faith of the participants. On the other hand, there are some with a growing desire to celebrate the preconciliar liturgy, with its specific sacred atmosphere. After the limited permission given by Pope John Paul II in 1984, Pope Benedict XVI opened up broader possibilities for this in 2007, to celebrate the Eucharist according to the Roman Missal of 1962, with the designation “the extraordinary form of the liturgy.”6 What had been fundamentally changed following the Council was once again part of the liturgy of the Church without modification. This decision, too, led to new debates.7 The discussions often seemed to be composed of a complex mixture of arguments and interpretations of liturgical- and cultural-historical, theological, church-political, and pastoral natures and therefore offered little clarity. What certainly did become clear, however, was that liturgy is an extremely sensitive subject that many people have an emotional interest in. Rapidly increasing secularization in the Western world lent the debate an added urgency. But not only the reforms as such, also the theme of the reform of the Roman liturgy itself has received much attention in liturgical research in recent decades. The reforms introduced and the subsequent discussions led to reflection on what liturgical reform actually is. In the course of the past seventy years, this topic has become increasingly important. This period can be roughly divided into three phases. Before the Second Vatican Council there was a debate about the possibility of liturgical reforms and the conditions these reforms would have to meet. This exchange of views was increasingly focused on the factual reforms as they began to take shape in the course of the 1950s and on desired liturgical adaptations. The second phase began with the decisions for reform in the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and the executory work, initially by the Consilium ad exsequendam ­Constitutionem  Benedict XVI, Apostolic letter “Summorum Pontificum,” given motu proprio, on the use of the Roman liturgy, https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html (accessed 7 July 2021). 7  For a critical evaluation and extensive bibliography, see Gerard Lukken, “The Field of Tension between Liturgical Restoration and Reform,” Jaarboek voor Liturgiewetenschap 27 (2011): 261-271. 6

4 INTRODUCTION de sacra Liturgia, which lasted until about 1980.8 Then the third phase began, with a reflection on and a discussion about the liturgical reform as it had been implemented and its significance and value. It is this discussion on the liturgical renewal to which this study wishes to contribute by the development of the fundamental and nuanced theories necessary in order to understand and evaluate the significance of liturgical reforms. This study aims to reflect theologically on the phenomenon of “liturgical reform,” beginning with the intuition that a theological understanding of the concept of “tradition” will aid comprehension of what liturgical reform is and what it is based on. Liturgy, after all, is a form, perhaps the form, of faithful, Christian tradition. When one reforms the liturgy, one introduces changes into that tradition. But what do we take tradition to mean? When the words “tradition” or “traditional” are associated with the liturgy, a cultural, sociological, or anthropological meaning is often implied. The liturgy as it is handed down is then considered as an expression of group identity or identification with a doctrine that is presumed to be immutable. Maintaining that doctrine and the accompanying customs laid down by law is then considered to be “true to tradition.” Tradition suggests old, hallowed roots and is in this respect diametrically opposed to change. In theology, however, the term “tradition” is more immediately connected with God’s self-revelation to the human being. Tradition is then, together with Scripture, viewed as a source of revelation, which brings with it a further specification of the term. In the process of tradition, this revelation keeps being understood anew. In this context, “tradition” does not mean first of all an immutable treasure of ideas and customs, but rather a dynamic process of receiving, understanding, and passing on the reality of salvation in Christ. In this study, the general phenomenon of “liturgical reform” will be explored on the basis of an analysis of such a theological concept of “tradition,” to address the central research question: if we understand the liturgy of the Church as a form of tradition, how can a theological concept of tradition contribute to the development of evaluation criteria for reforms of the liturgy? In other words, how can we make the concept of tradition productive for the evaluation of the process of liturgical renewal? 8  The council that was to execute the Constitution on the liturgy, established February 29, 1964; hereafter called: Council for Liturgical Reform. See Annibale Bugnini, La riforma liturgica 1948-1975 (Rome: Centro Liturgica Vincenziano – Edizione Liturgiche, 1983). English translation which is used here: The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), 49-53; Piero Marini, A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 15-39.

INTRODUCTION 5

In order to be able to formulate a satisfactory answer to this question, various building blocks will be needed, which will be elaborated in two parts. This work is a diptych, of which the two panels are closely connected with one another. The first offers a number of theoretical explorations on liturgical reform, on a theological concept of tradition that is expressed in liturgy, on the factors that disrupt or aid liturgical communication, and on criteria for evaluating liturgical reforms. The second panel comprises six case studies, in which that theory is tested. Part One consists of six chapters. The first chapter seeks to acquire insight into what liturgical reform is and which variants of it exist; and on the basis of these findings, to indicate what it is understood to mean within this study. In the second chapter, the concept of “tradition” is analyzed, directed towards a theological meaning of the term. The main components of it and the interrelation of these components will be explored by consulting two prominent theologians, Y. Congar and W. Kasper, who both studied the theological meaning of tradition. In the third chapter, the results of this exploration are applied to the liturgy. By various means the case is made that – and in what way – liturgy is a form of tradition. Indeed, liturgy is shown to be the most important form of tradition; it is the process of tradition par excellence, in which communication between God and the human person is brought about. The heart of the study can then be found in the chapters four through six: researching the relationship between liturgical reform and tradition. The fourth chapter will search for the factors that made this reform seem necessary and interpret these as disruptions, as stagnation of the process of liturgical tradition. The fifth chapter sketches the process of communication between the liturgy as a monument of tradition and liturgical commemoration in the present, making clear in what way the stagnation factors are active in this. It is argued that the aim of liturgical reform is to optimize this process. It will become apparent, however, that it is not always unequivocally certain whether a factor makes liturgical communication possible or rather hinders it. The process of liturgical tradition encompasses multiple dimensions and multiple forms of expression and communication. The sixth chapter proposes basic principles and criteria for evaluating liturgical reforms. These are criteria that are either used or neglected in the practice of liturgical reforms, and thus implicitly more or less formulate conditions that liturgical reforms ought to meet. Part Two is the second panel of the diptych, in which the criteria of evaluation are tested by means of six case studies from the history of the liturgy. A representative selection from the reformed Roman liturgical

6 INTRODUCTION books is examined: the Missal, the Book of Hours, the Ritual, the Calendar of saints and feasts, and the reformed monastic Ritual, focusing on the opening rite of the Eucharistic celebration, Compline from the liturgy of the hours, the liturgy of Confirmation, the calendar of the saints, the solemnity of Epiphany, and the rite of monastic profession. The aim is to let the full breadth of the liturgical life of the Church play a part. Often, after all, only the Eucharist is involved in discussions on the liturgical reform. Each chapter begins with a succinct historical overview of the liturgical phenomenon in question, followed by a description of the reforms, and in closing an evaluation of them on the basis of the criteria that have been developed. These chapters seven through twelve are not merely illustrations, but aim on the one hand to show how the criteria work in practice, and on the other to offer more insight into the nature and the interrelationship of these instruments of evaluation. For this reason, this second part ends with a chapter in which additional insights into the evaluation criteria resulting from the case studies are listed, to supplement the theory in Part One. The second part shows, in a concrete and colorful way, how the criteria formulated in the first part constitute a fine-meshed means of evaluation. In this way, the two panels support and strengthen one another. This study, accordingly, does not aim to offer a historical analysis or an evaluation of the recent Roman Catholic liturgical reforms. The liturgy and its reforms are historical phenomena, but the concern here is not with questions about certain periods, about what happened in the liturgy at that time, which initiatives were taken by whom, or what people thought of that. We are of course dealing with historical data, but I strive to use them in order to gain insight into the phenomenon of liturgical reform in general. It is our intention to draw conclusions about the evaluation of liturgical reforms with a general significance that is not limited to recent or older liturgical reforms. This study, however, consistently uses the twentieth-century, postconciliar liturgical reforms in the Roman Catholic liturgy as its frame of reference. The main motives for this are the fact that they are well-known, the availability of material and sources, and their current significance. Especially in the first and fourth chapters, the liturgical reforms and underlying stagnation factors are derived from that period. The six case studies in Part Two also all belong to the postconciliar, Roman Catholic liturgical reform. As well as being limited to the Roman rite, it is important to add that the perspective is that of northwestern Europe and that the literature used was written in the languages of that region. The sources that were

INTRODUCTION 7

used are mainly in Dutch, English, German, and French. This obviously colors and limits the approach. In closing, a few practical pointers. In the footnotes, the titles of cited works are stated with full references the first time, and afterwards with only the last name of the author and the abbreviated title. The numeration of the Psalms that is used, especially in chapter eight, is that of the Vulgate, after which, as a rule, the Hebrew numeration is stated in parentheses. The translations in the running text, especially of quotes in the footnotes, are by the author and translator, unless specified otherwise.

Part One

Theoretical Explorations on Liturgical Reform and a Theological Concept of Tradition

Chapter I

What Is Liturgical Reform? Introduction Reforms of the liturgy have always occurred. The collection of studies on liturgical reforms throughout the two thousand years of Christianity’s history, Liturgiereformen by M. Klöckener and B. Kranemann, demonstrates that the history of liturgy has had many reforms.1 They speak about these reforms as a “characteristic feature of Christian worship.”2 The specific reform of worship we are faced with in our times, that of the Roman Catholic liturgy, on the authority of the Second Vatican Council, is taken here as the frame of reference and it is on the basis of this reform that we ascertain what liturgical reform is, this is what our examples are drawn from, and this is ultimately what theory is tested against. The objective is, accordingly, not to examine the liturgical reforms of Vatican II as such, but rather, based on this concrete liturgical reform, to gain insight into liturgical reforms and how these can be evaluated. 1.  A Definition of the Term “Liturgical Reform” 1.  What Is Reform? The desired changes to the liturgy are quite generally denoted with the term “reform.” In addition to this, however, other terms are also used, such as “renewal,” “revision,” “restoration,” or “adaptation.” The precise terminology chosen in itself implies a view on the matter at hand, and 1  Martin Klöckener and Benedikt Kranemann, eds., Liturgiereformen: Historische Studien zu einem bleibenden Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes. Teil I: Biblische Modelle und Liturgiereformen von der Frühzeit bis zur Aufklärung. Teil II: Liturgiereformen seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zur Gegenwart, Liturgische Quellen und Forschungen 88 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2002). 2  Martin Klöckener and Benedikt Kranemann, “Liturgiereform – Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes: Systematische Auswertung,” in Liturgiereformen. Teil II: Liturgiereformen seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Klöckener and Kranemann, 1081-1108, at 1083

12

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

so it is important to make clear distinctions between the different concepts. The term “reform” in particular requires a precise definition, as it plays a central part in our argument. We take the lead of the study by T. Pott, Byzantine Liturgical Reform, which is in turn based on the book by G. Ladner, The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers.3 The term “reform” indicates a kind of renewal, especially as regards historical development.4 It is an originally Christian concept that can be traced back to the gospel experience of renewal in Christ. The two New Testament terms μεταμόρφωσις and ἀνακαίνωσις point to personal change, the renewal of the human being in the image and likeness of God.5 Reform is, as stated, a kind of renewal. In every renewal, what is at issue is a relationship between the old and the new, and an improvement or increase in value.6 We do not speak of renewal if the change consists in a deterioration. According to Ladner, the term “reform” adds three elements to this: it presupposes human freedom, it has a certain intention as its starting point, and it assumes a belief in the imperfection of the world and the possibility of perfecting it to a certain extent.7 Ladner therefore defines reform as “the idea of free, intentional and ever perfectible, multiple, prolonged and ever repeated efforts by man to reassert and augment values pre-existent in the spiritual-material compound of the world.”8 In other words: reform is a form of free human effort which has a certain intention to improve a part of reality by causing the increase of certain of its pre-existent values. On the one hand there is accordingly a connection between the old and the new, the renewal is expected from the strengthening of older elements, and on the other hand it is a strengthening of values with an eye to a certain future ideal.9 Essential and distinguishing for “reform” is that it presupposes human effort and exertion, characterized by freedom, intentionality, perfectibility, ­multiplicity, persistence, and repetition.10 These terms call for further 3  Gerhart Ladner, The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959). 4  Thomas Pott OSB, Byzantine Liturgical Reform: A Study of Liturgical Change in the Byzantine Tradition, Orthodox Liturgy Series (Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2010), 21. 5  Ibid. 6  Ibid., 22. 7  Ibid., 23f. 8  Ladner, The Idea of Reform, 35; Pott, Byzantine Liturgical Reform, 25. 9  Pott, Byzantine Liturgical Reform, 25. 10  Ibid., 26.



CHAPTER I: WHAT IS LITURGICAL REFORM?

13

explanation. Freedom and intentionality are limited because they often have to react to spontaneous changes that demand a response. They are also constrained by the reform principles that are established. The human exertion is directed towards the specified aim of the reform. The ultimate scope of the effort, the extent of the perfectibility, remains unclear. The will to reform does, however, presuppose prolonged and repeated efforts.11 The word “reform,” reformatio, has the special characteristic that it conveys both connotations of newness and amelioration, a relationship with ancient values. Whereas “re-” refers to a past, to constitutive components that can be found in a certain origin, “forma” expresses the organization and consolidation of the components in a new model and a new consistency.12 To summarize: the term “reform” indicates a process of historical renewal that is initiated and executed by human beings. It aims to strengthen and augment pre-existing values with an eye to perfecting the entity that is to be reformed. Reform is a dynamic concept which uses the past for the improvement of the present with an eye to the future. Recent ecclesiastical use of the term “reform” is also worthy of note. Within the Catholic Church, the Second Vatican Council initiated numerous and drastic changes. All the documents of this Council make a case for revisions in the spheres of church, theology, and society that have indeed actually come about. The two terms that were used most often to indicate the nature of those changes are ressourcement, returning to the sources, and aggiornamento, bringing up to date. Both terms were actually already in use before the Council and make clear that even then there was a demand for renewal.13 In the discussion about the reception of the Council, a hermeneutic of continuity has often been opposed to one of discontinuity. Many people, both proponents and opponents, emphasize the revolutionary nature of the renewals. However, research appears to indicate that even with all the drastic changes, in many ways the results of the  Pott, Byzantine Liturgical Reform, 26f.  Ibid., 30: “However, according to Ladner, only the word reformare – and to a certain extent its Greek equivalents ἀναμορφοῦν, μεταμορφοῦν, etc. – can wholly render the connotations of newness and amelioration on the one hand, and ancient values on the other; while the prefix re- refers to the anterior existence of the constitutive components of a substance, forma, etymologically linked to firmus, expresses the organization and the consolidation of its components into a new model and a new consistency.” 13  Mathijs Lamberigts and Leo Declerck, “Vatican II: Some Retrospective Observations,” in The Contested Legacy of Vatican II: Lessons and Prospects, ed. Lieven Boeve, Mathijs Lamberigts, and Terrence Merrigan, Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs 43 (Leuven, Paris, and Bristol, CT: Peeters, 2015), 195-225, at 215. 11

12

14

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

Council were part of an already existing trend of developments and were the consequence of movements that had long been active.14 Both continuity and discontinuity are characteristics of the work of the Council and these two are not mutually exclusive. That would be a fruitless antithesis. The term “hermeneutics of reform,” as used by Pope Benedict XVI, seems to do more justice to the results of both ressourcement and aggiornamento.15 The Council undoubtedly wished to be a council of reform and indeed brought about many reforms in the sense of the above description: renewals that strengthen and augment pre-existing values. In closing, a remark on the linguistic usage in this study. The term “reform,” as already said, plays a central part. For the sake of readability, some variation in the language used is employed. Instead of “reform,” words such as “change,” “modification,” “renewal,” “adaptation,” and other terms will therefore also be used, without this implying any semantic differences. 2. What Is Liturgical Reform? In what follows, two definitions of liturgical reform will be considered and compared with one another: those of Pott and of Klöckener and Kranemann. Pott concludes his second chapter with the description of liturgical reform as “Any active and deliberate intervention by man that presents itself as a change in the form of the liturgy.”16 Pott’s definition is short and broad, but is clarified by the reflections that precede it. He seeks a description of liturgical reform that is broadly applicable, in multiple situations and ecclesiastical traditions. He emphasizes active and deliberate human intervention in the liturgy. This is distinct from his attention to various forms of spontaneous liturgical changes that are abundant and important, but do not have a conscious and desired intervention. On the aim and the result of the intervention, Pott is also brief: what is at issue is a change in the form of the liturgy. Pott deliberately uses the word “form” with its double meaning of on the one hand external shape; on the other, in the Aristotelian sense, the nature or quality of a phenomenon. The already existing liturgical form is the point of departure for the reform, which takes place during the transmission of faith, in synergy with the culture of a people, from generation to  Lamberigts and Declerck, “Vatican II,” 214.  Ibid., 215. 16  Pott, Byzantine Liturgical Reform, 83. 14 15



CHAPTER I: WHAT IS LITURGICAL REFORM?

15

g­ eneration. In this gradual formation of liturgy, one can discern both spontaneous development, and a conscious and active human intervention.17 From the preceding explanation it also becomes apparent that initiation in the liturgy and conversion to the person of Jesus Christ present in the liturgy18 are essential elements of liturgical reform, prior to the ritual reform. However, due to human imperfection, this liturgical reform will never be perfect. This definition is not meant to be limited to pure, good, successful liturgical reforms; it pertains to any intervention as it actually occurs in history, with all the faultiness involved.19 The second definition is found in the work of Klöckener and Kranemann: “Liturgical reform” should be understood to mean an encompassing revision of the forms of worship of the Church. Insofar as liturgy is a complex happening, consisting of word and song, signs and symbols, set in the ecclesiastical, cultural, and social environment, a liturgical reform includes the textual shape of the liturgy, in connection with the liturgical chants, the varied liturgical form of expression, the world of signs and symbols, and the communicative dimensions and actions.20 We can only speak of liturgical reform when a true and complete renewal of liturgical life takes place.21

In a further characterization of liturgical reform, Klöckener says that the point is “to create the conditions so that the Church can celebrate its liturgy in its historically determined form as place and time of God’s salvific activity for the people of this time in the best possible way.”22  Pott, Byzantine Liturgical Reform, 80.  Ibid. 19  Ibid., 83. 20  Klöckener and Kranemann, “Liturgiereform – Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes: Systematische Auswertung,” 1087: “Unter ‘Liturgiereform’ ist eine umfassende Revision des Gottesdienstes der Kirche zu verstehen. Insofern Liturgie ein Komplexes Geschehen aus Wort und Gesang, Zeichen und Symbolen ist, eingebunden in das kirchliche, kulturelle und soziale Umfeld, erfasst eine Liturgiereform die Textgestalt der Li­turgie, in Verbindung damit den liturgischen Gesang, die vielfältige liturgische Ausdrucksgestalt, Zeichen- und Symbolwelt ebenso wie die kommunikativen Dimensionen und Handlungsvollzüge.” 21  Ibid., 1088: “Von Liturgiereform kann man also nur sprechen, wenn wirklich eine Gesamterneuerung des gottesdienstlichen Lebens stattfindet.” 22  Martin Klöckener, “Liturgiereformen in der Geschichte,” in Liturgiereformen in den Kirchen: 50 Jahre nach Sacrosanctum Concilium, ed. Gordon W. Lathrop and Martin Stuflesser, Theologie der Liturgie 5 (Regensburg: Pustet, 2013), 57-79, at 78: “Es geht bei jeder Liturgiereform darum, die Voraussetzungen zu schaffen, das die Kirche ihre Liturgie in deren geschichtlich bedingten Gestalt je von neuem als Ort und Zeit des Heilshandeln Gottes am Menschen dieser Zeit unter den Bedingungen dieser Welt bestmöglich begeht.” 17 18

16

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

Here, the emphasis is on creating, or restoring, the conditions on the basis of which the Church can celebrate liturgy. This definition, described by the authors as a first characterization, mentions a revision or renewal. This is already a further specification of what, in Pott, was called “change.” That the existing form is the essential point of departure in this regard is not expressed. What is mainly emphasized is the renewing, modifying activity. Pott stresses, to my mind correctly, that the term “reform” assumes that the reality that is to be reformed remains the essential point of departure, but is reformed through the addition of new parts and the removal of worn out ones. Renewal seems to point towards a complete transformation into a new state, restoration towards a restoration to a certain “primal” state; reform respects the development the matter concerned has undergone and makes improvements. Moreover, Klöckener and Kranemann do not wish to use the term liturgical reform for a partial revision, a change in certain components. A liturgical reform deserves that name if it is an all-encompassing change, i.e. a reform of an entire rite, or of all the liturgical happenings of an ecclesial community. What is striking, is that the “inside” of the liturgy, especially that the faithful are initiated and the permanent process of conversion, plays no part in this definition. In Pott’s view, as his explanation makes clear, these do belong to the form of the liturgy as such. He derives these elements from his sources in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Pott considers liturgical reform to belong to our human responsibility, the first phases of which have bearing on the internal aspect of the liturgy. The element of change to the form is further specified: the change is a revision or a renewal. This characterization by Klöckener and Kranemann emphasizes the encompassing nature of liturgical reform, which extends to all the parts of a rite. In his article “Litur­ giereformen in der Geschichte,” Klöckener supplements this description with seven characteristics, which he there calls “criteria.” Of these seven we mention in particular: the necessity of a clearly delineated aim, a creative way of dealing with tradition and the contemporary situation, an approachable responsible party, and a strategy for introducing the renewals.23 Neither definition explicitly mentions the official nature of a liturgical reform. That the competent authority initiates the reform in question or at least sanctions it and is also involved in the implementation seems to  Klöckener, “Liturgiereformen in der Geschichte,” 60-62.

23



CHAPTER I: WHAT IS LITURGICAL REFORM?

17

us to be essential for our understanding. Liturgy is, after all, the official and public ritual of a Christian ecclesial community. Changes to this will only be able to gain the same status if they take place by means of, or with the approval of, the ecclesiastical authority concerned. The following definition can therefore be proposed: “Liturgical reform is the deliberate improvement of all or the most important parts of the liturgy of an ecclesial community, both the ritual and the spiritual aspects of it, by or on behalf of the church leadership.” 2.  The Aim of Liturgical Reform in Connection with the View on Liturgy In the course of history, liturgical reforms have been very diverse and mutually divergent. This means that the aims that liturgical reformers and ecclesiastical leaders pursued with their renewals were also very disparate. Klöckener and Kranemann24 distinguish seven different aims. Regarding those aims of a liturgical reform, one can first of all make a fundamental distinction between two categories. First, the purely liturgical, internal reform; and second, an instrumental reform with an external purpose. In the former case the issue is the improvement of the liturgy itself, measured according to what it essentially is and aims to be. In the latter there is an external interest involved, to which the liturgy is made subservient: historical examples of this are, among other things, political or ecclesiastical unity, or the promotion of a certain devotion or aspect of doctrine.25 These two aims cannot always be separated. This discussion is concerned with the purely liturgical reform and investigates the connection between the view on liturgy and the aim of a liturgical reform. In the present times, the obvious choice is to start from the specification of liturgy according to the Second Vatican Council: It is (…) quite right to think of the liturgy as the enacting of the priestly role of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy, the sanctification of human beings is being expressed through signs accessible to the senses, and carried out in a way appropriate to each of them. Furthermore, the mystical body of Jesus Christ, that is the head and the members, is 24  Klöckener and Kranemann, “Liturgiereform – Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes: Systematische Auswertung,” 1092-1097. 25  Ibid., 1093f.

18

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

together giving complete and definitive public expression to its worship.26

This definition of liturgy starts from the priestly office of Christ, in which two aspects, two movements, are distinguished: the sanctification of man and the worship of God. There is a prayerful movement of the human person towards God and a sanctifying movement from God towards the human person: the ascending, anabatic, and descending, katabatic line respectively. These two movements are mediated by Christ and are performed in and by his body, the Church.27 Gathered in the ecclesiastical community, the human being directs worship to God through Christ and by means of Christ receives God’s sanctifying grace. In this view, liturgy is a process of divine-human communication, of reciprocal giving and receiving, in communion with one another. In this process, Christ is the necessary intermediary who opens the way for this communication and for this reason caused the Church and its liturgy to come into being. Reform of a liturgy thus understood is necessary, if this liturgy does not sufficiently bring about the intended communication. Can a liturgy, as it is factually celebrated, hamper or even prevent the process of divinehuman communication? Something can be said on this point with the help of both sacramental theology and ecclesiology. Theological reflection on the sacraments has always emphasized that the sacraments do their sanctifying work if the person at least has the proper disposition and if the minister of the sacrament at least has the intention of doing what the Church wants done in it.28 Even if the human circumstances in which the liturgy is celebrated are deficient, the sanctifying action of the sacrament is considered by the Church to be certain, thanks to the Holy Spirit that it has been given. The sacramental aspect of the liturgy is not dependent on human communicative abilities for its activity: the person without (sufficient) consciousness can receive equally God’s s­ alvation through the 26  Sacrosanctum Concilium 7: “Liturgia habetur veluti Iesu Christi sacerdotalis muneris exercitatio, in qua per signa sensibilia significatur et modo singulis proprio efficitur sanctificatio hominis, et a mystico Iesu Christi Corpore, Capite nempe eiusque membris, integer cultus publicus exercetur.” Translation from Norman P. Tanner and Giuseppe ­Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2 (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990), *822. 27  These two movements are also repeatedly distinguished in Sacrosanctum Concilium. See Michael Kunzler, Die Liturgie der Kirche, Amateca: Lehrbücher zur katholischen Theologie 10 (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1995), 21f. 28  Cipriano Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy: A General Treatise on the Theology of Liturgy (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976), 100f. See also hereafter, chapter III.2.



CHAPTER I: WHAT IS LITURGICAL REFORM?

19

sacrament. For the other aspect of the liturgy, the human worship of God, something similar holds true. The Church as a whole stands surety for the public worship; as bride of the Lord it keeps the song of praise going continuously, even if individual believers fail in their (conscious) participation in this. In this way, theology does justice to both human deficiency and the sanctity of the Church. We note, however, that what is at issue here is the necessary basis of the liturgy, in which it is determined what the minimum requirements are for Christian worship. By its nature, however, liturgy does not want to limit itself to this minimum but extends to a broader dimension: celebrating in faith with body and soul, intellect and emotion, as a faith community in its various parts. In this way, a person not only receives salvation, but also experiences and understands it in sundry aspects of his or her humanity. Liturgical reform is concerned with the situation in which this more complete conscious and experiential participation in the liturgy is being hindered. Are there also situations imaginable in which not the human being, but God is kept from reaching the human being in the liturgy? Faith in God’s omnipotence and His permanent, loving presence as Creator, Savior, and Sanctifier precludes the existence of such a hindrance on His side. It is possible, however, that in the course of time the liturgy of the Church has become inaccessible for many of the faithful, or that representatives of the Church celebrate the liturgy so poorly and proclaim the Word in such a distorted way, that God’s salvation becomes unrecognizable for the faithful, so that the liturgy no longer opens a perspective on the mystery of God, but rather obstructs our view of Him. Both in the faithful and in the forms that have been passed down, as well as in those who offer God’s salvation in word and sign, there may therefore be obstacles within the liturgical process of communication. Liturgical reform accordingly focuses on repairing both the deficiencies in the conscious and active participation of the faithful, and the shortcomings in the functioning of the transmitted liturgy and its celebrants. It must be concluded that the Second Vatican Council’s view on liturgy implies a matching view on liturgical reform. The two communicative movements in the liturgy, from God to humanity and from humanity to God, that are distinguished in this definition, may both be strengthened and renewed in their human and earthly forms; both lend themselves for liturgical reform. Their fundamental sanctifying and cultic activity is not in danger, but complete human and communal realization of them requires continual attention to liturgical renewal.

Chapter II

Tradition as a Divine-Human Reality Introduction To consider the possibilities and limitations of liturgical reform from the perspective of liturgy as a form of tradition, a theological analysis of the concept of tradition must be performed. Within the framework of fundamental theology, tradition is closely related to the theme of divine revelation and has always played an important part in dogmatic theology. God reveals himself in His incarnate Word. He expresses himself in human history and human language. What people have understood of Him has been handed down by the apostles and other disciples in rituals and stories. This handing down of the message of the gospel in Christ and by his disciples is what is meant, in the theological sense, by tradition. It is characterized by two aspects that can be distinguished, but not separated: tradition as process and tradition as content. How liturgy is an important manifestation of tradition will be elaborated on in chapter III. This chapter seeks an understanding of the concept of tradition as a human, communicative reality, in which the divine reality of salvation is at the same time imparted: tradition as a divine-human reality.1 1.  Three Elements within Tradition, i.e. “God’s Self-gift,” “Mediation in Tradition,” and “Human Appropriation,” in Y. Congar and W. Kasper In the course of history, the theological concept of tradition has had a number of different functions, based on its various denotations and aspects. In the time after the Council of Trent in particular, the notion 1  This title corresponds with the term used by W. Kasper in his description of J. Perrone’s concept of tradition. See Walter Kasper, Die Lehre von der Tradition in der Römi­ schen Schule (Freiburg i.Br., Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 2011 [1962]), 195.

22

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

of tradition was fairly static: it indicated the treasure of faith that the Church preserves and passes on, next to sacred Scripture. The two theologians whose notions of tradition are studied here were deeply influenced by the theological renewals of the Second Vatican Council. For them, the emphasis therefore lies more on the process-oriented aspects of the concept of tradition. In this view, tradition is first of all a process of handing down a certain reality of faith from person to person.2 Time and again, this passing down presupposes an offering or making available, and a receiving or acceptance. However many centuries this process of tradition may span by now, these two acts continue to form the beginning and end of it, but also form the basic structure of every individual act of transmission. In this denotation, tradition is a process of giving and receiving, and thus presupposes a giving and a receiving party.3 This is true on the micro-level, in each individual part of the chain of tradition, but also on the macro-level, in the whole of the chain of tradition. The giving, transmitting aspect lies in the revelation of God in Christ’s coming and self-giving and the sending of the Holy Spirit, as the New Testament testifies to these things.4 These foundational events were understood by the apostles and other witnesses and accepted in faith. Here we find the first receiving, appropriating element. In their preaching and in their liturgical, catechetical, and diaconal activities, the apostles, their successors, and other believers handed down the gift of God, which led to the development of traditions. In the course of history, these traditions crystallized into certain complexes of beliefs, texts, customs, or other realities, which are called monuments of tradition or witnesses of tradition. The traditions received in and by the Church, which developed into monuments of tradition, are subsequently accepted and appropriated by the faithful.  Yves M.-J. Congar OP, La Tradition et les traditions, II: essai théologique (Paris: Fayard 1963), 65: “Tradition dit, de soi, une transmission de personne à personne.” The English translation used in the following quotes is from: Yves M.-J. Congar OP, Tradi­ tion and Traditions: An Historical Essay and a Theological Essay, trans. M. Naseby (part 1) and T. Rainborough (part 2) (New York: MacMillan, 1967); Walter Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” in idem, Theologie und Kirche, I (Mainz: Grünewald, 1987), 72-100, at 88: “Diese Akt-Seins-Einheit eines lebendigen Empfangens und Weitergebens stiftet zugleich einen umgreifenden Zusammenhang zwischen den am Tradierungsprozess beteiligten Menschen.” 3  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 19. 4  Hereafter we speak without distinction about both the self-gift of God and that of Christ. 2



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

23

What is proffered, God’s revelation, what is represented in a monument of tradition, and what is received in faith are moments in a process that never exist independently and are closely intertwined. As Kasper says, “Objective faith cannot be separated from subjective reception. Fides quae and fides qua form a unity.”5 Receiving is the first phase of the process of appropriation. What is given to the believer in receptiveness and faith, he must subsequently familiarize himself with in a process of learning and assimilating. This process of assimilation takes places in a back-and-forth between what is proclaimed or offered, and the acceptance of it. Congar phrases it as follows: “Tradition is development; there takes place a constant interchange between primitive historical facts and faith, by which interchange Christian awareness gathers precision.” 6 Between this self-gift and the reception of it there is a mediating body, an event, a text, or another reality, in which God’s self-gift becomes tangible, something that is present in the course of history and that can be received by the believer. This is the monument or the witness of tradition. “The word of revelation uttered in Christ remains present in history and reaches men …,”7 these three main components of the process of tradition form the most important links, the structural elements of a tradition. Studying them, pays attention to the heart of the tradition. These two actions, transmitting and receiving, and the mediation between these two, are the most important phases of the process and therefore stand for what the tradition essentially is. Based on this assumption, the way in which Congar and Kasper address these three “links,” their context, and their relationship in their reflections on tradition can be studied. This will in the end of this chapter lead to some reflections on a theological view of tradition, specifically on tradition as a divinehuman reality.

5  Walter Kasper, “Schrift – Tradition – Verkündigung. II: Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” in idem, Glaube und Geschichte (Mainz: Gutenberg, 1970), 159-186, at 176. Or, with the words of Joseph Ratzinger, “On the Question of the Concept of Tradition,” in Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger, Revelation and Tradition (New York: Herder and Herder, 1966), 26-49, at 36: “For revelation always and exclusively becomes reality where there is faith.” 6  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 127: “La Tradition est développement; il s’opère un va-et-vient constant des faits historiques primitifs à la foi et de la foi aux faits, aux cours duquel et par lequelle la conscience chrétienne croît en précision”; trans.: Tradition and Traditions, 366. 7  Ratzinger, “On the Question of the Concept of Tradition,” 26.

24

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

2.  Y. Congar and W. Kasper on the Relationship between God’s Self-giving, Mediations, and Human Appropriation as a Form of Tradition 1. God’s Self-gift a) The Two Theologians on God’s Self-giving in Christ Christian tradition begins with the self-giving of Christ in his life, death, and resurrection. In his discourse on this self-giving of Christ, Congar develops the image of the spring, basing himself on Hippolytus and Cyprian.8 Christ is the spring from which arises the stream of tradition. The spring is here an image of the origin. This symbolism of the spring is also directly linked to the first sacrament, through which the human being becomes a sharer in God’s self-gift: baptism. This sacrament will hereafter be discussed extensively under the heading “Appropriation.” The term “Gospel” also plays an important part in the theme of God’s self-gift in Christ. It is considered to be the source of the stream of tradition, symbolized in some Church Fathers by the river of Eden.9 In this context, the Gospel is not sacred Scripture or some part of it, but Christ himself. In Christ, God gives himself as good news for the world. The term “Gospel” is not limited to the person of Christ, but is the source of the whole of Christian life. It accordingly also denotes the Christian reality in the lives of the faithful. Congar here mentions the terms: knowledge, rebirth, behavior, ethics, sanctity.10 Furthermore, Congar speaks of the Word of God, and here too he is referring to Jesus Christ, born, died, risen, glorified.11 Christ is given, handed over to the world.12 Congar also briefly refers to the trinitarian aspect: the divine transfer is the mission by the Father of Christ and of the Spirit.13 The Holy Spirit and Christ do the same work, he says, but different elements of it are ascribed to them. The incarnate Word reveals 8  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 47; vgl. Yves M.-J. Congar OP, La Tradi­ tion et les traditions, I: essai historique (Paris: Fayard, 1960), 43: “La source d’où procède toute la tradition de l’Église, avant de couler en plaine, vient, comme en cascade, depuis le ciel, depuis Dieu (le Père), qui s’est manifesté humainement en envoyant Jésus-Christ.” 9  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 48. 10  Ibid., 52. 11  Ibid., 51. 12  Yves M.-J. Congar OP, La tradition et la vie de l’Église (Paris: Cerf, 1964, 21984). English trans. used here: The Meaning of Tradition (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1964, 2 2004), 16. 13  Congar, La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 16.



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

25

the Father and establishes the new, definitive covenant and the Church. The Holy Spirit gives to this inspiration, the inner dynamic of life, “and he interiorizes in the people the gifts that were acquired by Christ.”14 To Christ, therefore, belongs the one-time transfer of the repository of faith, through the gift of his own person, and to the Holy Spirit the interiorization and actualization of it in the faithful throughout history.15 Kasper also speaks out clearly on Christ’s self-gift as the beginning of the Christian tradition. In the person of Jesus and especially in his death on the cross and his resurrection, he sees the self-giving, the tradition, of God par excellence. “Cross and resurrection are therefore the tradition, period; as such they are foundation, content, and paradigm of every Christian tradition.”16 As a concise definition of the concept “tradition,” Kasper gives the following wording, based on an initial impetus by J.S. Drey: “self-surrender by God through Christ in the Holy Spirit for the sake of abiding presence in the Church.”17 So this self-surrender is a trinitarian event: the triune God gives himself in the person of Christ and at the same time in the Spirit of Father and Son. Kasper here understands the term Trinity as a unity between the immanent and the economic Trinity: because in himself God is love, He can also reveal and impart himself, in the Son and the Holy Spirit, to humanity and the world as love.18 b) Kasper’s Eschatological Accent In his two main texts on tradition, Kasper emphasizes its Christological nature: Christ’s self-giving is central. Both texts formulate it in such a way that Jesus himself, in his person, is the ultimate and definitive 14  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 38: “… et il intériorise dans les hommes les dons acquis par le Christ.” 15  Ibid. 16  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 92: “Kreuz und Auferstehung sind also die Überlieferung schlechthin; als solche sind sie Urgrund, Inhalt und Paradigma jeder christlichen Tradition”; also see Carlos Kalonji Nkokesha, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper: pertinence d’une catholicité historiquement et culturellement ouverte, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 259 (Leuven, Paris, and Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2013), 176. 17  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 92, and note 19. Cf. “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 168: “… Selbstüberlieferung Christi im Heiligen Geist an seine Kirche zu beständiger Gegenwart” in which Kasper cites Johann Sebastian Drey, Die Apologetik als wissenschaftliche Nachweisung der Göttlichkeit des Christentums in seiner Erscheinung I (Mainz: Kupferberg, 1844), 372ff. Also see Kasper, Die Lehre von der Tradition, 17 and 439, note 101. 18  Kalonji Nkokesha, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper, 181 and 189f.

26

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

t­radition. He is the one who is handed over and handed down, while at the same time handing himself over and down; He is in himself both act and content of tradition.19 According to Kasper, however, this tradition is of an eschatological nature. In his own person, Jesus speaks the eschatological and final word on the tradition.20 In Christ’s incarnation, his death and resurrection, the end time, the completion of history, has begun. This cannot be transmitted in the same way as any other historical event. This is emphasized in both texts. In “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” Jesus’s word and his actions are repeatedly referred to with the term “eschatological.”21 In this context, the author also makes use of the related term endgültig, i.e. “ultimate” or “definitive.” In his work “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” of seventeen years earlier, this is also clearly expressed but with a different accent.22 This distinction between the two eschatological approaches to tradition in Kasper is what we wish to analyze more closely below. In the older work, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” Kasper points out a phenomenon he has discovered in the New Testament, particularly in Paul and John23: a Sprengung, a breaching of the traditional Jewish concept of tradition. Whereas of old it was a matter of handing down what one had received from the fathers or the elders, these apostles present a new view on transmission, because the concept of tradition is interpreted from the perspective of Christ and his self-gift.24 In Jesus’s own preaching, he already breaks the chain of transmission by positing his own authority vis-à-vis Jewish tradition and even Moses’s words. In his death and resurrection as Christ’s self-giving, this rift comes to the fore even more clearly as an eschatological event, a “realized eschatology”25 in which God’s ultimate future is made present in the here and now. This one-time event, God’s act in Christ, cannot be “transmitted according to the laws of the continuity of the history of ideas.”26 God’s future is made present in him as an interruption of the course of tradition. God’s eternal reality became an earthly event in the man Jesus. In Kasper’s 19  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 91; cf. “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 173. 20  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 91. 21  Ibid., 91-92. 22  Kasper, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 173-175. 23  Ibid., 173. 24  Ibid. 25  Also “präsentische Eschatologie” (see Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche3, 3, col. 871). 26  Kasper, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 173: “… nach den Gesetzen geistesgeschichtlicher Kontinuität überliefern.”



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

27

words: “What is at issue here is not continuity, but identity.”27 The earthly Jesus is identical to the exalted Jesus and through his Spirit He is an active presence in the Church. In the word of preaching and the answer of faith, the faithful are drawn out of this old aeon and placed in a new aeon. They are detached from the old context of tradition and enter into a new age that, since Easter, is enduringly present.28 Kasper here speaks of an eschatological understanding of tradition. The familiar image of tradition as a chain with links stretching from beginning to end is abandoned. Instead, there is a sense of the new eschatological reality that will be fulfilled in the future, that has begun and is present in Christ, and that is based on the salvific acts of the past. The latter accordingly cannot be ignored, but through these salvific acts that have been passed down one will always be able to encounter Christ in the present, with a view to the ultimate coming of his Kingdom. Kasper distinguishes two aspects in this regard. First, history in its concreteness and tradition has to stay in the picture through an emphasis on the identity of the earthly Jesus and the exalted Lord. After all, it is through the historical events in Jesus that the new reality came into being. Simultaneously, the new must also be proclaimed, in the message that Jesus is made present here and now, by the Spirit, as the power of the new aeon. Whether in that Spirit salvation and life take place in the present as well, is decisive for the identity between “now” and “then.” Now too, just as when Jesus came to earth, the main issue is that a new creation comes into being.29 It can therefore be stated that on the basis of Christian eschatology, a radically new concept of tradition arises. It should be noted, however, that a more classic concept of tradition is also found in the New Testament, especially in Luke, the Deutero-Pauline epistles, and the pastoral epistles.30 Kasper, however, underscores the importance of the renewing, eschatological concept of tradition for our times, for the sake of the intelligibility of the faith: The prevailing forms of tradition have to be broken out of, precisely in order to express their significance in a new way. A certain reduction of the many traditions to their one central Christological message appears to be inevitable.31 27  Kasper, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 174: “Hier geht es nicht um Kontinuität, sondern um Identität.” 28  Ibid. 29  Ibid. 30  Ibid., 172. 31  Ibid., 175: “Es gilt bisherige Überlieferungsgestalten zu durchbrechen, eben um das in ihnen Gemeinte in neuer Weise auszusagen. Eine gewisse Reduktion der Vielen Überlieferungen auf ihre eine christologische Zentralaussage hin scheint unvermeidlich zu sein.”

28

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

The strong emphasis on the end time, which breaks through the prevalent tradition, is in this older work thus connected with theological renewal and a Christological concentration. In the later work, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” the contradistinction between eschatological newness and earthly transmission seems to be less radical. Kasper now speaks of a dialectic between on the one hand the truth and reality of the exalted Christ, which on the other hand becomes true again and again in and through human tradition.32 The human and ecclesiastical processes of transmission are related to the selfgiving of Jesus Christ like a sacrament: they are an external sign and instrument that makes the inner reality present and enables people to make contact with it.33 The human dimension of tradition, therefore, remains: people transmit to each other what is earthly and visible, trusting that Christ, the living Lord, will connect himself with this in his Spirit and in this way let people share in his new creation. At the same time, Kasper states that the eschatological reality in Christ is not bound to human forms of tradition and can reveal itself in new ways. There is, accordingly, a tension between the two factors. It is clear, however, that the exalted Lord is present in and through human tradition.34 This human tradition takes place through living example and word and ritual. According to Kasper, the Eucharist occupies a special position within this tradition as source and summit of the tradition of the Church. “Source and summit of all ecclesiastical tradition is the celebration of the Eucharist; in it, the self-giving of Jesus that took place once and for all is present in a special way.”35 Proceeding from the Eucharist and directed towards it there are, according to Kasper, numerous other kinds of ecclesiastical tradition.36 In Kasper’s older model of his eschatological concept of tradition, the tension between earth and heaven is only resolved fragmentarily, in the partial realization of the work of the Spirit. In his later work, this tension can mainly be seen in the sacramental structure of tradition. Kasper does not attempt to  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 93.  Ibid. 34  Ibid. 35  Ibid.: “Quelle und Höhepunkt aller kirchlichen Überlieferung ist die Feier der Eucharistie; in ihr wird die ein für allemal geschehene Selbstüberlieferung Jesu in besonderer Weise gegenwärtig.” With his choice of words, Kasper makes reference to Sacro­ sanctum Concilium 10, in which the liturgy is called “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows”; and to Lumen Gentium 11: “… the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life …” 36  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 93. 32 33



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

29

c­ onnect two concepts or reconcile them to each other. It would appear, however, that the two views are not necessarily mutually exclusive, for the concept of sacrament also has an eschatological framework. Only the earthly-human aspect of it can be transmitted as a human tradition, while the Christological and Pneumatic aspects of it have an unpredictable and, based on the coming of the Kingdom, a transformative power. In the work of Congar, this eschatological dimension is not explicitly indicated. However, in the sacramental life of the Church, born of the paschal mystery of Christ, Congar does see salvation realized in the covenant between God and humankind. At each instant of history in which a man enters into the covenant and makes a personal appropriation of the saving truth and power offered to him, a moment of the history of salvation is lived out in which this history is constituted by the Holy Spirit’s power as a properly divine history, in conditions that go beyond those of a purely earthly one. … all was given and was virtually present in Jesus Christ. And yet, all is new at each instant …37

And in the community-building work of the Holy Spirit, Congar sees a presence and anticipation of the Kingdom of God. The Spirit, unique and eternal – and this implies his entire presence in one single instant without temporal extension – brings to birth in men’s hearts the kingdom of God, and thus foreshadows the “God who is all in all” of the eschatological kingdom.38

Factually, the theme is not absent in Congar, but it is not given the emphasis and elaboration that Kasper offers. c) Congar’s Emphasis on the Transmission of the Reality of Salvation Congar strongly emphasizes the fact that in tradition, the reality of Christ is handed down not only as knowledge, or through texts, but likewise as a reality. Given as traditio: a gnoseological tradition of faith 37  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 33: “À chaque instant de l’histoire où un homme entre dans l’alliance et inscrit à son bénéfice ce qu’elle lui offre de vérité et de vertu salutaires, un moment de l’histoire du salut est vécu, où cette histoire se réalise, par la vertu de l’Esprit Saint, comme histoire divine dans les conditions qui dépassent celles de l’histoire purement terrestre. … tout a été donné, tout se trouve virtuellement en Jésus Christ. Et pourtant, tout est nouveau en chaque instant …”; trans.: Tradition and Traditions, 259. 38  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 34: “[Le Saint-Esprit,] unique et éternel, c’est-à-dire présent tout entier en un instant sans étendue, contient tout ce qui relève du Royaume de Dieu et il opère tous en tous. Il anticipe ainsi le ‘Dieu tout en tous’ du Royaume lui-même”; trans.: Tradition and Traditions, 261.

30

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

(catechesis, creed), which reaches completion in a real tradition (transmission of the new life in Jesus Christ).39 The texts are accordingly indispensable for knowing what we are talking about, but in the transmission of realia salvation itself is handed down. Tradition comprises not only the transfer of knowledge concerning Christ’s salvation, but especially the transmission of the reality of that salvation itself. Tradition refers to a series of real divine actions for the salvation of humanity. One becomes a sharer in this reality through contact and imitation, just as a child learns how to live life by living in the community of a family.40 Tradition is therefore the transmission of the whole of Christianity, including Scripture and sacraments.41 The Church saw its Lord hanging on the cross and saw Him institute the Eucharist before there were texts. He did not leave any texts behind, but was a living example.42 That is where the tradition started, which initially entailed following the living examples.43 Christ is mainly handed down through the liturgy; that is the privileged place where tradition is preserved and shared. The liturgy contains the entire mystery of God’s self-giving.44 “… owing to its transmission, what we hold is … the reality that is Christianity itself … in the highest degree in the celebration of the Eucharist, by which Christ deliv­ ers himself to us.”45 This sense of the liturgy as a witness of tradition and a means of transmitting it, must be understood in view of the monuments and witnesses of tradition in the next section. 2. Mediations: Monuments or Witnesses of Tradition In each of his two works on tradition, Congar dedicated a chapter to the phenomenon of mediating bodies between God’s self-giving and the appropriation of this by the human being. He speaks of “monuments of tradition” in this context. This term originates with the theologians of the Roman School, in particular J.B. Franzelin,46 and indicates expressions of  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 50.  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 24. 41  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 53. 42  Ibid., 113 and La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 21. 43  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 114. 44  Ibid., 117. 45  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 33; La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 31: “… cela m’a été transmis … c’est la réalité même du christianisme … suprêmement dans la célébration eucharistique, par laquelle le Christ achève de se livrer à moi.” 46  Johannes Baptist Franzelin, Tractatus De divina traditione et scriptura (Rome and Turin: Marietti, 1870), 127ff.: Sectio II: De conservandae traditionis documentis et 39

40



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

31

tradition in which it is partially recorded and preserved. These are expressions of the tradition which precedes them and therefore does not coincide with them.47 Congar notes that the monuments of tradition, which he also calls witnesses of tradition, are interpretations of God’s word. The mystery of Christ which has been handed down, is received and interpreted by concrete groups of believers.48 In the course of history, this interpretation has been expressed in a series of recorded witnesses, writings or other monuments: institutions, liturgy, art, customs, etc. These are “mediations and way stations” between the Word of God and the individual human being49; proper to these monuments of tradition is accordingly that they fulfill a mediating role between God’s self-gift and human reception. In his Essai théologique, Congar distinguishes seven loci, places where the content of tradition is found, Scripture, the oral tradition of the apostles, doctrinal texts, the liturgy, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the laws and customs of ecclesiastical life, and the teachings of theologians and human reason in general.50 In La Tradition et la vie de l’Église he sums these seven up into five: Scripture, doctrinal authority, liturgy, Fathers, and practice or spontaneous expressions of faith.51 Within the abovementioned seven, he distinguishes the constitutive tradition (Scripture and oral apostolic tradition) and the explicative tradition found in the other five. These explicative traditions, which explain the constitutive source and build upon it, are what Congar calls “monuments of tradition” in the true sense.52 Congar personally does see something in also considering Scripture a, and indeed the first, monument of tradition, as it is considered by Cyprian divinae traditionis caput et origo, “head and origin of divine tradition,”53 but he acknowledges that in doing so he would be deviating ­instrumentis, C. 1: De monumentis traditionis per se spectatis, Thesis XIII: De monumentis traditionis quatenus exhibent consensum custodum depositi, et quatenus pro iisdem sunt instrumenta doctrinae. 47  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 181 and La Tradition et les traditions, I, 250-260. 48  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 96. 49  Ibid., 97. 50  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 182; however, see also ibid., 183 where he adds “les expressions spontanées du christianisme.” 51  Congar, La Tradition et la vie de l’Église, 97f. and 100. Congar does not elaborate on the latter here but he does in La Tradition et les traditions, II, 206. 52  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 182f. 53  Cyprian, Epistula 74,10, in Patrologia Latina 3, col. 1182: “Nam si ad divinae traditionis caput et originem revertamur, cessat error humanus, et sacramentorum coelestium ratione perspecta, quidquid sub caligine ac nube tenebrarum obscurum latebat in lucem veritatis aperitur,” cited by Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 97f.

32

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

too much from common parlance54 and therefore confines himself to the abovementioned five. Of these five, he discusses the liturgy and the Fathers in both his works, and in Essai théologique he considers also the “spontaneous expressions of Christianity” by which he is referring to the expressions of Christian faith in day-to-day life, and in particular those of the saints.55 This proves once again that the monuments of tradition are not only texts and statements, but likewise realities, both ritual and institutional ones, and moral and spiritual ones.56 It is moreover significant that tradition is not to be found outside of the monuments, but neither is it swallowed up in the monuments of tradition or confined to them. It rather transcends them, just as a fact is always more than the testimony to it, or as the conscience is more than its manifestations.57 The monuments of tradition in themselves are already the result of the appropriation of the Word of God by the faithful, but they must also be received and acquired time and time again. Kasper also pays quite a lot of attention to the mediating bodies of tradition, which he refers to exclusively as “testimonies of tradition,” Zeugnisse der Tradition or Traditionszeugnisse.58 He speaks of the truth and the reality of the exalted Christ who becomes present in history in and through human tradition.59 In this regard he has in mind both official testimonies, such as liturgy, creeds, conciliar texts, etc., and the dayto-day human testimony of, for example, the lives of the saints and the testimony of the Church Fathers, theologians, and Christian art, “everything the Church is, everything it believes.”60 These testimonies never coincide with tradition, but bear witness to it in an analogous way, that is, there is a “correspondence and a similarity based on that, together with an even greater dissimilarity.”61 They “represent tradition, in the manner of a sign or a sacrament,”62 Kasper says, and a little f­urther on he calls the testimonies of tradition “quasi-sacramental signs.”63 What is  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 98.  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 206. 56  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 113. 57  Ibid., 114. 58  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 93-96. 59  Ibid., 93. 60  Ibid.; reference to Dei Verbum 8. 61  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 94: “… Entsprechung und darin begründeten ähnlichkeit bei je grösserer Unähnlichkeit,” cf. Kalonji Nkokesha, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper, 191. 62  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 93: “Sie sind … nicht die Tradition selbst, sie sind nur deren zeichenhaft-sakramentale Vergegenwärtigung.” 63  Ibid., 94: “… die Traditionszeugnisse als quasi-sakramentale Zeichen…” 54 55



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

33

at issue here is therefore a visible, earthly, and human element that functions as a symbol of the divine, changeless, definitive reality.64 These testimonies are very important for the Church, they should be faithfully preserved and considered sacred, and yet not made absolute or deified. They are a path to the unfathomable mystery of God.65 At the same time, they always speak the language of the time and culture in which they arose and are stamped by the fact that the Church is a Church of sinners whose knowledge is obscured by sin.66 The tradition is always more and greater than these limited expressions and it transcends every time-bound phrasing.67 And yet, the testimonies of tradition will not be able to stop being a representative sign of the truth of Jesus Christ, on the basis of the promise of the enduring presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. In all their historical limitation and contingency, they remain true and binding.68 The one tradition is binding in the differentiated collectivity of the testimonies, and in binding models for our current attempts to render the gospel in the language and problems of our times.69 The individual testimonies of tradition do not have the value of a proof of tradition. The point is finding the “common thread,” the one tradition, amid the multiplicity of testimonies of tradition. Besides timebound elements, the testimonies themselves also have a “surplus of truth,” elements that may have a new current meaning.70 However, Kasper, like Congar, also acknowledges that tradition is more than testimonies, expressions with a certain truth claim. Tradition also consists in the handed down reality in the life of the faith community. He phrases it as: The apostolic tradition thus does not refer to individual doctrines that are in no way founded in Scripture, nor primarily to individual documents in which tradition has crystallized (liturgy, Church Fathers, etc.), but to the living interpretation of Scripture borne by the Spirit of Christ, its “spiritual” meaning, which manifests itself not only in doctrine, but in the communal life of the ecclesial community of faith.71  Kalonji Nkokesha, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper, 191.  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 94. 66  Ibid., 95. 67  Kalonji Nkokesha, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper, 191 68  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 95. 69  Ibid., 96. 70  Ibid., 100. 71  Walter Kasper, “Christsein ohne Tradition?,” in Diskussion über Hans Küngs ‘Christ sein’ (Mainz: Gutenberg, 1976), 19-34, at 32: “Die apostolische Tradition meint also nicht einzelne Lehren, die in gar keiner Weise in der Schrift grundgelegt sind, auch nicht primär einzelne Dokumente in denen sich die Tradition niedergeschlagen hat (Liturgie, 64 65

34

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

Kasper may be summarized as discussing the testimonies of tradition mainly, but not exclusively, within the context of their authority and their relation to tradition as such. He reaches the judgement that they are binding in their collectivity, but that each individually, because of its time-bound nature, should not be accorded any absolute authority. 3. Various Aspects of Appropriation a) Appropriation, Believing, and Understanding Human appropriation of God’s salvation is, for Congar, first of all a matter of faith. In faith, the human being affirms and accepts the salvation being offered to him or her. That which is believed, the message or the contents, is itself also often called “faith.” Faith is a personal and internal matter, but despite this should not be understood in an individualistic sense. It is a corporate, communal term: faith is received together, in the whole of the life that is led in community.72 Congar sees the concretization of this reception of faith in the sacrament of baptism and especially in the liturgical celebration of this sacrament.73 During the weeks preceding baptism in the Easter vigil, in the ancient Church the ritual of the traditio symboli, the transmission of the creed, took place. The baptismal candidate receives the text of the apostolic creed and gives it back again in the red­ ditio symboli. By means of handing over a text, and signified by this, the inner reality of faith is transferred. Gregory of Nyssa here speaks of the πρώτη παράδοσις, the first transfer.74 According to Congar, the intention was that one learned the text by heart in order to subsequently recite it in public.75 In the celebration of the baptism itself, during the Easter vigil, the essential facts of the trinitarian faith were repeated in a question and answer form during the triple submersion.76 It was therefore a form of Kirchenväter u.a.) sondern die lebendige, vom Geist Christi getragene Auslegung der Schrift, ihr ‘geistliches’ Verständnis, das sich nicht nur in die Lehre, sondern im gesamten Leben der kirchlichen Glaubengemeinschaft zeigt.” 72  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 28. 73  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 21f. and The Meaning of Tradition, 29; cf. La Tradition et les traditions, II, 50. 74  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 21. 75  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 29: “… l’évêque livrait au catéchumène le texte du symbole baptismal, qu’il expliquait terme à terme et que le catéchumène devait lui ‘rendre’ en le lui récitant par cœur, huit jours après.” According to Congar this ceremony is avouched by Ambrose, Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem and Egeria, cf. La Tradition et les traditions, II, 23. 76  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 23f.



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

35

giving back, a confession of faith in the Trinity, in the context of both the preparative catechumenate and the baptismal ceremony itself during the Easter vigil. The person to be baptized was submerged, baptized, in the faith that was at that same moment confessed.77 The faith was received in the heart, confessed in the baptism through which the person commits himself, and confirmed by means of the physical act of baptism.78 The word fides points to faith in four ways: as a personal attitude and commitment; as an objective, professed religious truth; as a symbol, the text of a creed in which it is expressed; and as the sacrament of water, which is the sacrament of faith.79 This ritual is, according to Congar, the pinnacle of a catechesis, a mystagogy, a pedagogy, and a conversion.80 Faith, symbol, and sacrament form a single common reality which is fundamentally not brought about or invented by the human being, but is received as the temporary end point of a process of tradition.81 This receiving, Congar emphasizes, is not something passive but rather presupposes a living and active subject. Human assent to the preaching of the Church is a real action which is a necessary precondition for the process of tradition.82 The word that comes to someone through tradition is not merely mechanically transmitted, but has to be received. It is an appeal, a provocation, and it seeks an interpersonal relationship.83 This theme of tradition as an invitation to enter into an encounter, a reciprocal relationship, emerges regularly in Congar. He emphasizes that salvation history is about people in their relationship with God, about the free answer people give to God’s offer of salvation.84 Congar often uses the biblical term “covenant” for this.85 Because people respond to God’s appeal, God’s covenant becomes a reality in the course of history.86 This reciprocity is, according to Congar, an exchange of gifts between God and man: God gives everything and we are asked to nourish his act within us and be available for him. At the same time, we have to nourish ourselves with his 77  Cf. Adrien Nocent OSB, “Christian Initiation in the Roman Church from the Fifth Century until Vatican II,” in Sacraments and Sacramentals, ed. Anscar J. Chupungco, Handbook for Liturgical Studies 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 49-90, at 55, 71f. 78  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 24. 79  Ibid. 80  Ibid. 81  Ibid.; cf. ibid., 28. 82  Ibid., 28, also see note 70. 83  Ibid., 28. 84  Ibid., 35. 85  See e.g. ibid., 32, 36, 38, 56. 86  Ibid., 36.

36

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

Word. It is an exchange, a meal in which Christ and the believer are mutually food for each other; the one embodies the other in reciprocity.87 Kasper, too, underscores the essential role of the appropriation of tradition by the believer. The tradition of Christ’s self-giving, which comes to the faithful in separate testimonies of tradition, can only be possessed in and through the act of living appropriation. He adds two words to this: translation and renewal, emphasizing that tradition changes when a believer or a generation make it their own.88 For Kasper as well, this appropriation is mainly a matter of acceptance in faith; faith as assent plays a crucial part here. Kasper says: “Through revival and the mission of the Spirit, a new era has begun. Through faith, we are sharers in it.”89 The two criteria he mentions as means of discerning the truth of a preaching, a transmission, also emphasize the aspect of reception by the believer in his own time and culture. First, he mentions that the proclaimed Word has to be accepted and believed in the Church.90 In other words: a process of tradition is only complete if what is preached is also received, has reached its destination. His second criterion is that a proclamation has to be realizable in the view of the world and inwardly understandable.91 With this, the theologian emphasizes that reception cannot be solely an individual or internal, ecclesiastical affair, but must also be understandable and acceptable in the surrounding world and its cultures. In his concept of tradition, Kasper is inspired by Hegel, among others. He quotes him, comparing the process of tradition with receiving an inheritance: This inheriting is simultaneously receiving and accepting the inheritance; and at the same time it is reduced to a matter that is ­metamorphosed by the Spirit. What is received is in this way changed and enriched and at the same time abolished.92

 Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 29.  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 89: “Wir besitzen die einzelnen Traditionen nur im Akt lebendiger Aneignung, Übersetzung und Erneuerung.” 89  Kasper, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 174. 90  Ibid., 175. 91  Ibid., 177. 92  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. Johannes Hoffmeister (Ηamburg: Meiner, 1940), 13, cf. 21ff., cited by Kasper in Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip, 84: “Dieses Erben ist zugleich Empfangen und Antreten der Erbschaft; und zugleich wird sie zu einem Stoff herabgesetzt, der vom Geist metamorphosiert wird. Das Empfangene ist auf diese Weise verändert und berei­ chert worden und zugleich aufgehoben.” This final word is quoted divergently; in Hegel, in the abovementioned publication, it reads: “erhalten” (preserved). 87 88



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

37

In the reception and understanding and appropriation of what the tradition offers, that which is received is consequently changed. Every generation, as it were, adds something to the tradition and so contributes to an ongoing growth of the truth in history.93 Kasper acknowledges the historicity of the knowledge of things of tradition, but questions the criterion of truth. If tradition coincides with historical development, who then determines which parts of it are true and which are not? Kasper finds this criterion in the person of Jesus Christ.94 In relation to the Christian tradition He is always the greater truth,95 in Him God’s truth is given.96 On the basis of that Truth, criticism and correction of the reality of tradition is always possible. b) The Role of the Holy Spirit In the process of receiving what tradition offers, the Holy Spirit plays a large part, according to Congar. While the Holy Spirit and Christ do the same work, different aspects are ascribed to them, as was already mentioned above. In Christ, the main issue is the institution of the new covenant, the sacraments, and the establishment of the Church; the Holy Spirit gives inspiration and inner life, and interiorizes in the people the gifts of Christ.97 There are two terms that Congar uses repeatedly for this work of the Spirit: He interiorizes and actualizes faith in the faithful.98 In this way, the Holy Spirit is apparently the connection of the proclaimed Christ in two directions: both with the interior of the human person and with the continuously changing circumstances of the current time. Both aspects also come to the fore in the following list of faithful activities, with which Congar wishes to indicate that this is not always the same – rather, these are ever again new issues. The Spirit works in the faithful, in the course of history, through praise, contemplation, the fight against error, mission, and answer to the needs of the times.99 Congar refers to the Johannine texts on the teaching, bringing to mind, and

 Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 86.  Ibid., 88. 95  Ibid., 89. 96  Ibid., 88. 97  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 38. 98  Ibid.; also see ibid., 104. 99  Ibid., 39. 93

94

38

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

announcing of the Spirit.100 The Spirit is a gift that is given to the human person inwardly without violence, that lives in that person and works in a gentle way, so that it can hardly be distinguished from the workings of the person’s own spirit.101 The receptiveness with which the person opens himself for the Word is also linked to the Holy Spirit. According to J.A. Möhler, the Holy Spirit gives the human person an instinct, a Christian “sense of touch,” that leads him to the truth. This is a sense of what is proper to tradition, a sensus catholicus, the spirit of the ecclesial community.102 Concerning human appropriation of God’s salvation in Christ, in Kasper, too, the Holy Spirit immediately comes up. In this way he makes clear that the process of tradition is not something that humans simply have at their disposal. Through the Holy Spirit, the objective self-surrender of God in Jesus Christ becomes a subjective reality.103 The Spirit gives the human being the possibility of accepting this self-­ surrender.104 The Spirit has to call to mind the words and works of Jesus and so introduce one to the truth. “Tradition is the memoria Jesu Christi happening in the Holy Spirit; it is the word of God living in the hearts of the faithful through the Holy Spirit.”105 The Holy Spirit thus leads the believer to remember Christ, by which means God’s Word becomes a living presence in his heart. That is the process of tradition in the Christian sense. It is also the Holy Spirit that turns the personal history of Jesus into something universal and makes him topical and present in the here and now.106 c) Within the Community of the Church The appropriation of the tradition by the believer takes place within the community of the Church. To Congar, it is clear that the faith of the Christian is always surrounded by the concrete reality of the Church.107 A few aspects of this particularly come into view in his writings. First of  John 14:25-26 and 16:13-14; Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 40.  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 105. 102  Congar, La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 63; The Meaning of Tradition, 79. 103  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 92. 104  Kalonji Nkokesha, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper, 176. 105  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 92: “Tradition ist im Heiligen Geist geschehende memoria Jesu Christi; sie ist das durch den Heiligen Geist in den Herzen der Gläubigen lebendige Wort Gottes.” 106  Kalonji Nkokesha, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper, 180. 107  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 30. 100 101



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

39

all: one person alone can never encompass the whole wealth of the tradition; this can only be received in a living community and even then largely implicitly.108 A large part of the content of tradition goes beyond “… perfect comprehension and formulation.”109 Even by participating only partially in the faith of the Church, implicitly the whole of the tradition is passed on.110 A great part of tradition is unconsciously absorbed and experienced, but at a certain moment explicitly known: “… something lived implicitly into something known explicitly.”111 Faith is indeed by definition a communal matter. It is always received from others and it creates community between the giver and receiver and all who share in it.112 The Church consists of baptized believers, some of whom have a special responsibility as ordained ministers, a responsibility especially to preserve, discern, and define the deposit of faith. Individual believers and the hierarchy are together the subject of tradition.113 The process of tradition is not limited to the teachings of the doctrinal authority, the “regular” believers contribute to it on a large scale.114 In this context Congar cites Thomas Aquinas, who posits that a particular tradition is handed down per successionem fidelium, through the succession of the faithful.115 Congar emphatically points out the great importance of the process of tradition in the circumstances of the family; “The faith is received by the newly baptized baby together with life, and with the nourishment and warmth of his home.”116 The reception of the reality of faith is an essential part of tradition and also carries it further; believers have contributed to this on a large scale, among other things by their religious experience and their religious life.117 Tradition, therefore, does not mean only a “sacred depositum” that remains the same, but also the unfolding of that d­ epositum  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 42.  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 26; La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 26: “au delà de ce qu’on peut en comprendre et en formuler.” 110  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 74; La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 59. 111  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 27; La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 27: “de l’implicite vécu, à l’explicite connu”; cf. La Tradition et les traditions, II, 125f. 112  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 20 and 26. 113  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 64; La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 52. 114  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 64; La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 52. 115  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera Omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P.M. edita 11 (Rome: Congr. de Propaganda Fide, 1903), III.25.3.ad 4: “… Apostoli, familiari instinctu Spiritus Sancti, quaedam ecclesiis tradide­ runt servanda quae non reliquerunt in scriptis, sed in observatione Ecclesiae per successionen fidelium sunt ordinata”; Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 72. 116  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 73; La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 58: “la foi est reçue avec la vie, avec le pain et la chaleur de la maison.” 117  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 61. 108

109

40

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

through the experience and defense of it by the people of God, generation upon generation.118 In this context, Congar makes use of the term sensus catholicus or sensus fidei, or indeed Ecclesiae Catholicae sensus, an instinctive sense that the faithful have of the content of the faith of the Church.119 The subjective instinct of faith and the objective content are never separated. The subjective instinct must always find its way in the objective framework of truths, rites, customs, and behaviors of the Church, which is a community in space and also in time.120 The role of the Church in the process of tradition is also of great importance to Kasper. According to him, the appropriation of the tradition by the Church begins with the Church’s remembrance of the great deeds of God in Christ. Here, the role of the Church is explicitly mentioned as the place to find the constant presence of the Selbstüberlie­ ferung, the tradition of self.121 The Church is a constitutive element for the realization of God’s salvific will. After all, this can only become reality if it is faithfully received and publicly affirmed.122 In the reception of the content of tradition in and by the Church, traditions, the so-called “testimonies of tradition,” arise, which were discussed in the previous section.123 The Church does not “possess” the many testimonies of tradition in a static manner, but as it goes forward on its way, in the memory of the history-up-to-now of the tradition of faith. In a certain sense, tradition is also a going forward into the future, “on the path of the anticipation of current and future new forms of transmission of faith.”124 What is the relationship between the reception of the Church and that of the individual believer? The believer shares in the reception of tradition by sharing in the life of the Church. As Kasper puts it: Only in going along on the historical path of the Church does the individual Christian have the certainty of sharing in the one tradition of faith regarding God’s salvation through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.125  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 41.  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 78f.; La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 62f. 120  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 81; La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 64. 121  Kalonji Nkokesha, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper, 184. 122  Walter Kasper, “Die Kirche als universales Sakrament des Heils,” in idem, Theo­ logie und Kirche, I (Mainz: Gutenberg, 1987), 237-254, at 247; Kalonji Nkokesha, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper, 184. 123  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 93. 124  Ibid., 96. 125  Ibid.: “Nur im Mitgehen des geschichtlichen Weges der Kirche hat der einzelne Christ die Gewissheit der einen Glaubensüberlieferung vom Heil Gottes durch Jesus Christus im Heiligen Geist teilhaftig zu sein.” 118

119



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

41

The sense of faith as well, the sensus fidei, as it exists in the people of God, is an important condition in this regard. A sensus fidei and a sentire ecclesiam are necessary in order to distinguish normative testimonies of tradition from time-bound opinions.126 3.  Similarities and Differences between the Thought of Y. Congar and That of W. Kasper on Tradition Congar and Kasper each obviously have their own style, language, and frame of reference. And yet, they correspond to each other on many important points. Both emphasize tradition as a community event in which the doctrinal authority is the servant of tradition, which is seen as a process of living transmission of the gospel from generation to generation, and especially as the self-giving of God through Christ in the Holy Spirit. There are also differences between the two theologians here. Kasper clearly describes this self-giving of God as a trinitarian event. Congar does so as well, but does not elaborate on this as much; instead he emphasizes the role of the separate divine persons: the salvation-historical event of the work of Christ as the one who gives himself, and that of the Holy Spirit who is active in the Church. For Congar, the Spirit works in the interpretation and understanding of and in the response to the preaching of God’s Word, and thus also in the faithful appropriation of tradition by the individual person. This emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the faithful acceptance of God’s work by the human being is also clearly present in Kasper, but in much less detail. Both theologians mention monuments or testimonies of tradition, in which the transmitted reality of faith has taken shape and which function as a mediation between the self-gift of God and the receptive faith of the human person. Congar’s choice of the term “monuments of tradition” may indicate their stability, their memorial nature, and their authority. The fact that Kasper avoids the use of the word “monument” and consistently speaks of “testimony of tradition,” may indicate that he sees this as a less “weighty” reality, that he is more alive to their changeability and time-bound nature. This interpretation of this difference cannot be found in Kasper himself. We have, however, seen in him a greater attention to the interpretative characteristic of human reception. Both point out that while these monuments or testimonies are reliable and  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 99.

126

42

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

authoritative witnesses of tradition, tradition is not encompassed by them and is always more and greater than what one learns of it by this means. Congar elaborately discusses two of the most important monuments: the liturgy and the Church Fathers. He expressly does not view the liturgy as an arsenal of theological arguments, but as a celebration of the covenant between Christ and the Church, his bride.127 Kasper discusses the question of their status more elaborately. He argues that they are reliable carriers of the doctrine of the faith, but that they are not tradition itself. Rather, they represent it in a symbolic-sacramental manner and may not be made absolute. In the phase of appropriation as third element of the process of tradition, the two authors also each stress different points. For both, faithful acceptance is the crucial concept here, and in this both see an important role reserved for connection with the Church and the sensus fidei of the faithful. Congar emphasizes the reciprocity of this. He sees an encounter taking place here, a renewal of the covenant between God and man. In his view, appropriation is not something passive, but rather it requires the active participation of the human person, his interpretation and processing, which also makes ongoing development of the tradition possible. The Holy Spirit has a large part to play in this interiorization and actualization. Congar also repeatedly uses the term “community” here. Faith takes place in community, the handing down of tradition happens within the life of a community and also forms community. Many elements of tradition are transferred implicitly, tacitly, within that community. Kasper places more emphasis on the hermeneutical dimension in the current understanding of tradition; it has to be explained in such a way that today’s people and today’s world can grasp what is believed and go along with it. He also observes that the traditions themselves change in the process of reception and appropriation. There are two points of difference to discuss here: the relationship between truth and reality in the process of transmission, and the role of Christology in the concept of tradition. As regards the first point: it is striking that Congar places a strong emphasis on tradition as a form of transfer of a reality. For him, the term “gospel” is not only an announcement of salvation, but also a realization of salvation. In the tradition not only a message, a phrasing is handed down, but especially the sacramental, spiritual, moral, and social reality of salvation in Christ, which goes beyond what words can express. Congar’s concern is indeed the truth of  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 183f.

127



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

43

Christ that is handed down in texts, but especially in a lived reality. Kasper, too, acknowledges that the tradition is not only and not primarily a verbal tradition, but a Realtradition, a transfer of a reality.128 In this context he quotes Dei Verbum: … the church, in its teaching, life and worship, perpetuates … (and hands on to every generation) all that it is and all that it believes.129

Factually, however, in his studies on tradition Kasper concerns himself more with the gnoseological aspect of tradition. Whereas Congar leaves aside the questions about criteriology, the role of the testimonies of tradition as loci theologici, locations of doctrinal truth,130 Kasper feels the need to make a distinction in the content of tradition and to pose it the question of truth.131 In his view, a sound relationship with tradition consists in ties to the testimonies of tradition, combined with freedom for the truth which is always greater.132 To this end, Kasper makes the following concrete suggestion. On the one hand he sees the possibility of a critical correction of traditions based on the origin, Christ,133 and on the other hand he seeks criteria for the truth of traditions in today’s world. He mentions two of these: a certain doctrine has to prove itself in the Church and find a willing ear and faith; and a proclamation has to be inwardly intelligible in today’s world, people have to be able to go along with it.134 The tradition thus continuously has to make two movements: back to the origin in Christ and forwards to new historical situations.135 The second and final point of difference between the two theologians carries the most weight. Kasper introduces an “eschatological concept of tradition.” Jesus’s self-surrender and the gift of the Spirit create a new  Kasper, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 168.  Dei Verbum 8: “…, sicque Ecclesia, in sua doctrina, vita et cultu, perpetuat cunctisque generationibus transmittit omne quod ipsa est, omne quod credit”; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *974. 130  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 181-183. 131  Kalonji Nkokesha, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper, 95-101. 132  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 100. 133  Kasper, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 168. 134  Ibid., 175f. 135  Walter Kasper, “Vom Geist und Wesen des Katholizismus: Bedeutung, Wirkungsgeschichte und Aktualität von Johann Sebastian Dreys und Johann Adam Möhlers Wesensbestimmung des Katholizismus,” Tübinger Quartalschrift 183 (2003): 196-212, at 207, formulates this as follows, following J.A. Möhler: “… die Tradition als dialektische Einheit von regressiver und progressiver Bewegung. Regressiv muss die Kirche immer wieder an Jesu Christus als dem ‘Anfang in der Fülle’ kritisch Mass nehmen; … Umgekehrt muss sich die Kirche in einer progressive Bewegung immer wieder neu auf geschichtliche Situationen einlassen.” Cf. also the pages 209ff. 128

129

44

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

era, which breaches the course of tradition. With this, the ultimate and definitive future of God has begun. The issue is no longer first of all whether faith is part of a historical continuity, but whether through the power of the Spirit, union with the exalted Lord comes about and his new creation becomes a reality. This view on tradition wishes to start from the future and the present which has been changed by this future. This makes it possible to take a more critical approach to existing traditions. In name of the resurrection of Christ and the new aeon that began with it, existing forms of tradition can be criticized. Kasper acknowledges, however, that besides the eschatological concept of tradition, the salvation-historical model, which is more focused on continuity, plays a part in the New Testament. He is of the opinion that the two are not mutually exclusive and each has its own significance,136 but in the current age sees a special role reserved for the eschatological model, because of the necessity of “breaching forms of tradition that existed up to now, precisely in order to express what they signify in a new way.”137 Congar does not have this kind of eschatological aspect in his thought on the concept of tradition, and instead has a different outlook on changes in the communicative process of tradition. In his view, these will in general be of a gradual and organic nature, because the new covenant realizes itself in the salvation-historical development, whereas for Kasper breaches in tradition are possible, on the basis of the new reality of Christ’s resurrection. 4.  A Theological Concept of Tradition 1. Tradition: Divine-human Reality a) The Process of Tradition: Work of Humans and of the Holy Spirit From the texts considered, three elements emerge: God’s self-gift, human appropriation,138 and the mediating monuments of tradition. These cannot exist apart from one another and together give meaning to the complex term “tradition.” They are necessary, indispensable parts of the  Kasper, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 174.  Ibid., 175: “… bisherige Überlieferungsgestalten zu durchbrechen, eben um das in ihnen Gemeinte in neuer Weise auszusagen.” 138  The term appropriation will from now on be used as a summarizing designation of all the aspects which together form this structural element of tradition: understanding, accepting, believing, processing, experiencing, and responding, cf. II.1. 136 137



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

45

historical communication process that is tradition. Together, they make possible and are of service to the transfer of message and reality. Both theologians, Congar and Kasper, emphasize this and both also offer the same theological basis for this unity of God’s self-giving and human appropriation by means of the monuments of tradition. They see this basis in the double nature of the concept of tradition. On the one hand, handing down the reality of faith is the work of human beings, on the other hand, the same process is an activity of the Holy Spirit. Just as the one Church is a divine reality yet at the same time a human reality,139 the tradition of the Church has these two sides. Both aspects will be further clarified here. Tradition is a cultural and philosophical term that indicates a diachronous communicative process important to many human groups and societies. What is handed down by means of “tradition” in the course of history partly determines the identity of a human community. For Christianity, arisen within the environment of Judaism with its traditions of oral and written Torah, this human factor has played a significant part from the very beginning: Jesus of Nazareth received that Jewish tradition from his parents and teachers, from his surroundings, and as a teacher himself passed it on to his disciples. The proclamation of the gospel, baptism, and the eucharistic memorial, which he told the apostles to carry out, is a transmission of what they had received from him. The apostles, the evangelists, and other prophets and teachers of the first Christian communities continued that process of transmission in oral and written form; the New Testament is the solidified result of a part of that. It was a human process, using the language, the other means, the assumptions, and the customs of the people and cultures of that time. The Christian tradition is embedded in and is a part of the human culture of the people that receive and appropriate it and then pass it on. The limitations and weaknesses proper to every human communication are also present in the procession of human transmission that formed Christianity. Characteristic of these processes is the fact that they are subject to variations: sometimes they take place at a high speed, at other times slowly, sometimes they are very modernizing, at other times they hark back to previous phases. 139  See Lumen Gentium 8: “Societas autem organis hierarchicis instructa et mysticum Christi Corpus, coetus adspectabilis et communitas spiritualis, Ecclesia terrestris et Ecclesia coelestibus bonis ditata, non ut duae res considerandae sunt, sed unam realitatem complexam efformant, quae humano et divino coalescit elemento.”

46

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

This human process can, however, also be viewed from a different perspective. The theological viewpoint discovers a transcendent dimension in it, referred to with the term “Holy Spirit.” Both Congar and Kasper stress the fact that the Christian process of tradition is an activity of God’s Spirit, working both in Christ’s self-giving and in the receiving human person. What Christ gives in the Spirit in the institution of the new covenant, realized in the Church and the sacraments, is by that same Spirit turned into an inward and personal reality of the human being and an extant reality of the community. Through the Holy Spirit, the objective self-surrender of God through Jesus Christ becomes a subjective reality.140 The Spirit gives the human person the possibility of accepting this self-surrender, gives inspiration and inner life, and interiorizes and actualizes the gifts of Christ in the people. This means that the Holy Spirit realizes Christ’s gifts in the human person, makes them his or her own reality. All this takes place within a bond of community. The Lord and the faithful people form a community, a communio, that is created by the Spirit and within which an encounter of giving and receiving takes place. The gift of God and the reception by the human person thus come about on the basis of a communio that they themselves simultaneously realize.141 In this way, the self-gift of Christ and the appropriation by the human person are closely connected. The process of tradition is not complete until what was preached has also been received and taken up. The Holy Spirit inspires the believer to remember Christ, and by this means the Word of God becomes a living presence in his or her heart. This is the process of tradition in the Christian sense. The third element, the monument of tradition, which mediates between self-gift and appropriation, functions in the power of the Holy Spirit as well. It came into being through the operation of the Holy Spirit in people who testified to their faithful reaction to God’s Word. Where people express the received reality of faith in word and action within their community under the influence of the Holy Spirit, stories, texts and groups of texts, other expressions, rituals, and patterns of behavior arise that may be acknowledged as monuments of tradition. These are subsequently comprehended and accepted and appropriated by people under the animating influence of the Holy Spirit. The encounter between the divine self-gift and the receiving human person, arranged  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 92.  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 19.

140 141



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

47

by the Holy Spirit, is expressed in the monuments of tradition, determined by place and time, each with its own content, form, and specific color. The process of tradition, with its various phases or links of the chain, is thus on the one hand a human process of communication, of giving and receiving in the course of time, and on the other a divine event in human history in which God offers salvation, passed on and received through people by the Holy Spirit. b) The Monument of Tradition The monuments or testimonies of tradition are an essential part of the thought of both theologians discussed. Here, these monuments will be discussed more comprehensively, because the liturgy, as an important example among them, will hereafter be the central focus of this study. (1) Characteristics The first characteristic of monuments of tradition lies in the fact that they have a certain relationship with the source of tradition, the Word of God. This relationship can be described in six aspects. Firstly: the monu­ ments of tradition do not coincide with the Word of God. This is a distinction between the source of tradition, the Word of God, and the historical witnesses or monuments of tradition. No monument of tradition can presume to correspond seamlessly with the gospel. Tradition is always more than its monuments. They are, however, secondly, expressions of the origin of tradition, they are Word of God as it is transmitted and handed down. In the monuments of tradition, the Word of God finds expression. These expressions are always characterized by the time and culture in which they originated. They are, accordingly, particular expressions of the gospel that have been appropriated by the Church, are always limited with regard to their source and can never represent it completely in its fullness and purity. Thirdly: the monuments of tradition are interpretations of the Word of God which is received, listened to, understood, and also interpreted at a certain moment in time. They do not represent the gospel or the Word of God as such, but as understood and expressed by certain of the faithful at a certain time, with an eye to the questions and circumstances of that time. As monuments of tradition, however, they also transcend their own time and are authoritative for subsequent generations. Fourthly, monuments of tradition can

48

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

be characterized as quasi-sacramental signs.142 This term is used by Kasper in order to, on the one hand, indicate the nearly sacramental importance of the monuments of tradition, and on the other hand prevent them from being made absolute. They are visible, earthly, and human elements that function as a sign and representation of the divine, invisible reality. Fifthly, monuments of tradition are God’s self-revelation, expressed in concrete forms in which the culture, daily life, and particular form of religiosity of the people who received God’s self-revelation are always present.143 The divine and human aspects form an indivisible unity. In this regard, monuments of tradition have an “incarnational structure”: they testify to the immixture of divine and human reality. Sixthly, with regard to the Word of God as received by human beings, the monuments of tradition have a preserving function. They retain the expressions of the Word of God as they arose in different times and places. This preserving function is only partial, for all existing, ancient testimonies of tradition are subject to change, especially when historical-critical research either discovers new texts or customs or offers new interpretations, or determines inauthenticity or designates traditional insights as incorrect. At the same time, they also have a high degree of permanence, because they reflect the history of Church and Christianity as it factually was. With regard to permanence, authority, and identity as properties of the monuments of tradition, the American theologian J. Thiel argues for speaking of a “canon of tradition,”144 a normative list of authoritative testimonies that are a part of tradition. Similar to the canon of sacred Scripture, the monuments of tradition also form a canon, with this difference that the biblical canon has been closed, whereas the canon of tradition is open to further growth. With regard to the second characteristic, monuments of tradition not only have a relationship with the Word of God, they are also focused on the receiving party. They are related to the human person and the community which are open to that Word and able to receive it. Initially, monuments of tradition are always the result of such a process of reception and appropriation by human beings, individually and communally. Where people express their reception and understanding of the gospel  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 94.  Orlando O. Espín, “Traditioning: Culture, Daily Life and Popular Religion and Their Impact on Christian Tradition,” in Futuring Our Past: Explorations in the Theology of Tradition, ed. Orlando O. Espín and Gary Macy (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2006), 3-22. 144  John E. Thiel, Senses of Tradition: Continuity and Development in Catholic Faith (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 39-46. 142 143



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

49

in various forms and where those forms come to play a collective role and become authoritative, monuments of tradition arise. One’s own assumptions and horizon of understanding play an important part in this. Reception and appropriation of that message take place by means of a specific interpretation and lead to an individual form of expression in specific human, religious, and cultural circumstances. Monuments of tradition thus reflect not only the gospel, but also the receiving person’s own reality. These monuments of tradition are subsequently intended to make present the divine reality for new generations of people, time and again. The Word of God does not come to the human person in an abstract form, but always embedded in earlier expressions. A third characteristic of the monuments of tradition is that they fulfill a mediating role between God’s self-gift and the receiving person of a certain time period.145 There is always a distance in time and place between the Word of God and the receiving human being. This distance becomes greater as the revelatory event in Christ lies further in the past and is proclaimed in more different cultures. The function of the monuments of tradition is to mediate between the Word of God and the various times and places, circumstances and cultures. They are thus positioned between two realities and fulfill a serving role, both with regard to the person opening him- or herself for God’s Word, and with regard to this self-gift of God’s. The monument of tradition consequently has a certain transparency: it does not aim to create a new reality, but to represent the reality of God’s self-gift so that the human person can appropriate it. In many respects the monument of tradition can be called a means, a means of transmission, mediation,146 or instrument that aims to mediate in the transfer of the content of faith to ever new generations. (2) Definition and Designation This brings us to the matter of the name and the definition of the monument of tradition. We already saw that Congar and Kasper used different designations. We have already mentioned quite a few different terms with which the monument of tradition is described. Next to the term “monument,” we also read “witness” or “testimony of tradition,” in which the distinction in relation to the source of tradition and the personal nature is accentuated. Other terms used are document or  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 97.  Ibid.: “… médiations de la Parole.”

145

146

50

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

i­nstrument of tradition, or means of transmission.147 The term “channel” also occurs.148 The latter two terms aim to emphasize that the monuments of tradition are completely at the service of the “content” of tradition which comes from elsewhere. In certain more recent works on the theology of tradition,149 the term is not used and the word “tradition” is employed indiscriminately, even when one apparently refers to these testimonies of tradition.150 In this context, we note that the monument of tradition does not primarily indicate tradition as process of transmission, but rather tradition as a certain content. The spiritual content of faith is embodied in the various monuments of tradition. And yet, it never coincides with these monuments of tradition, either individually or collectively. The ongoing process of handing down the Church’s treasure of faith makes the use of monuments of tradition necessary, but is not limited to it. The divine reality is always greater and more. In this study, the term “monument of tradition” is used. Lexicographic data indicate that the term “monument” refers to the commemoration of something or someone, to the preservation of a remnant of that, and, possibly, to the impressiveness and greatness of it.151 Our choice of this term in this sense is based on the following four motives. First of all, the term “monument” suggests a permanent nature. We are, after all, not dealing with a one-time testimony of faith, which can then be exchanged for another. The monuments of tradition are meant to be permanent, enduring, stable quantities that arose in the course of history and have a testifying role to play for the continuation of history. The second motive is the clearly delineated, individual, and private nature of a monument of tradition. In these monuments we may be dealing with a phenomenon that bears witness to the gospel for the entire Church and the entire world, but it does so as a specific collection of texts, series of actions, or objects, bound to a distinct place, time, and circumstances. Here, evidence is again seen of the incarnational characteristic of the  J. Perrone: “Überlieferungsmittel,” in Kasper, Die Lehre von der Tradition, 285-

147

288.

 Perrone, in Kasper, Die Lehre von der Tradition, 286.  For example Thiel, Senses, 193: “This central character (of the Christian narrative) is … the apostolic deposit of faith as it is embraced in all the times, places, persons, practices, and events that the Church values as sacred tradition.” 150  Congar pointed out the many meanings that the term “tradition” can have in theology and in ecclesiastical language. See La Tradition et les traditions, II, 65-74, especially the diagram on p. 74. 151  Johan B. te Velde OSB, “Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition,” Ques­ tions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 95 (2014): 194-215, at 195. 148

149



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

51

monuments of tradition, in keeping with an essential characteristic of Christ and the Church. The third motive is the memorial nature of the witnesses of tradition. Monuments are, after all, memorials. Monuments of tradition are, by definition, signs in which the remembrance of the mystery of salvation in Christ is expressed. The fourth motive is the preserving nature. A monument is, in many cases, a remnant of what one wishes to remember; it preserves that remembrance, maintains it, and keeps it from being forgotten. In the history of the Church, the monuments of tradition have in fact had that important function. Based on these data, the term “monument of tradition” can be described as follows: a complex of texts, customs, and/or objects that bear witness to the reality of faith as it has been handed down, and represent it in an authoritative manner, so that it might be remembered.152 (3) Origin and Identification The monument of tradition is thus tradition in its most concrete, crystallized, stable form. It plays an important, authoritative role in theology, preaching, the celebration of faith, and in Christian life. At the same time, it is not an absolute, infallible source of Christian doctrine and reality of faith. The various monuments of tradition differ from one another in value and significance. They form complexes of texts, objects, or actions that are each also vastly different from one another in terms of importance. Moreover, they do not constitute a closed canon: new monuments of tradition can come into being and the existing ones can continue to grow. These facts call forth further questions. How does the monument of tradition come into being? When, in the course of history, does something develop from separate data of faith, doctrine, and practice that, as a whole, we can call a “monument”? And the second q­ uestion: how and by whom is it recognized and determined whether and when we are dealing with a generally accepted and authoritative monument of tradition? Answering both these questions will give us more insight into the nature of the monument of tradition and the way in which it functions. When is a certain doctrine or a certain practice part of tradition, as a component of a monument of tradition? Much of what is now considered part of revealed truth was for a long time in an early stage of development, either in calm, gradual development, or in discussion or as a part of a controversy in which it was not clear beforehand which view  Cf. Te Velde OSB, “Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition,” 199.

152

52

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

or which practice would ultimately become the doctrine of the Church. Tradition develops as part of history, partly with an obvious, partly with an unpredictable outcome. The chronological development of the reality of faith, handed down from one generation to the next, in which the Spirit of God is actively present, both in handing down and in receiving, can only be traced afterwards. Elements of tradition which crystallize and combine in complexes to form monuments of tradition, arise in the Church as personal and communal expressions of the reception and appropriation of the transmitted reality of faith. They develop in time. The Church as a community, in its diversity of believers and bearers of authority, recognizes and accepts the monuments of tradition in practice by working and living with them and building upon them. A new generation can determine on the basis of historical data how a doctrine or practice developed and gradually crystallized. Afterwards, looking back on history, monuments of tradition can be identified. Tradition is something that has developed in time, in chronological order. But distinguishing and determining what belongs to a tradition is something that can only be done after the fact. Beforehand, human beings, from a limited, earthly perspective, are unable to say what will develop as Christian tradition. In the present, people again and again point out new historical elements in the Church that, viewed from the current perspective, belong to tradition. The always new present determines the perspective from which one looks at the past and has a heuristic function, it sheds light on elements that were not discovered in other times. Other elements of tradition, ideas, or practices, are no longer acknowledged as authentic from the viewpoint of the present and fall into disuse. In this way, the shape of the monuments of tradition changes as a result of the way in which people in the present look at the past. Thiel develops this theme in his book Senses of Tradition; he distinguishes a prospective (looking forward) from a retrospective (looking back) conception of tradition and notes that when we look at tradition, we easily place ourselves at the position of the beginning of a development. Wanting to survey a tradition from that point of view amounts to taking up a divine perspective that has the whole of the future in view. Thiel phrases it as follows: Prospective conceptions of tradition, then, take a divine perspective in their regard for the tradition. They imagine the historical sweep of tradition from the standpoint of its earliest period and the authority attributed to it.153  Thiel, Senses, 81.

153



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

53

This is a prospective point of view which places itself at an authoritative point in history as if it is the present and from there judges what does and does not belong to the tradition, but this distorts time and place. In Thiel’s words: The optic at work in this prospective conceptualization skews the ordinary conditions of time and space. As apostolic truth is personified as observer and judge, its glance across the span of tradition proceeds not from the present, but from the authoritative past or, better, from a past that functions as an ever-recurring present.154

After all, no single generation has the ability to look at tradition from that point of view. The reception of tradition takes place in the present and the faithful therefore have to look at the past from the perspective of the present in order to consider the continuity of the tradition.155 Only after the fact, in the here and now, can it be said which historical data have been formed into monuments of tradition. This is how Christians, from the beginning, have determined retrospectively what belonged to their tradition. Consequently, a complete, finished survey of tradition is impossible from this retrospective, human standpoint; however, the continuity proper to tradition is sometimes glimpsed. This cannot be determined theoretically, but is established after the fact in ideas and events as they occur in the development of doctrine and life. In Thiel’s words: A retrospective conception of tradition always makes the actual present moment its standpoint and from this human perspective looks back to the Christian past for a continuity that cannot be surveyed across a finished past but is instead glimpsed continually in and as tradition’s development.156

This identification after the fact of elements of Christian tradition, the Christian monuments of tradition, is an acknowledgement of the activity of the Spirit in history. It is a function of the Church and of human beings, on the basis of human, religious experience.157 This also means that a definitive, final judgement is impossible and that a subsequent generation in the Church, from a new present and a new perspective, can arrive at variations and changes in the perception of what belongs to the Christian tradition. This is an act of faith which necessarily takes

 Thiel, Senses, 80.  Ibid., 83. 156  Ibid. 157  Ibid., 84. 154 155

54

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

place at the present time, in this place, and under the current circumstances. Thiel calls this the inescapable point of departure: If we take the present seriously as the inescapable point of departure for any configuring of tradition, then we must say that any grander description of the development-in-continuity of God’s revelation in history begins in an act of faith in this time, in this place and in these circumstances.158

While the monuments of tradition are a source of divine revelation, determining what is a monument of tradition is a human and ecclesial task, just as determining the canon of sacred Scripture was first done by authoritative believers and then confirmed by the doctrinal authority of the Church. If the identification of authentic tradition by people happens in an ever new present and not at the origin, do we not run the risk of arbitrariness? Is this retrospective continuity not a changing observation that keeps giving way to the next and leads to fragmentation and relativization of the transmitted reality of faith?159 The assessment whether and where God’s Spirit is at work in history is a human matter, limited by the fact that we are creatures. It is a human and ecclesial task to recognize and acknowledge the workings of the Spirit in history.160 Tradition is not an uncreated reality, but a gift from God which is completely intertwined with time, history, and culture.161 However, tradition receives its authority if the entire Church speaks out and acknowledges a certain tradition. This, according to Thiel, is the Church’s answer to the graceful activity of the Holy Spirit in history. The universality of tradition lies in this act of ecclesial commitment, the Church’s response to the graceful activity of the Holy Spirit in history and an act that is itself possible only through that same grace.162

Each new generation has new questions and new insights concerning tradition and uses this as a basis for its claim that this is its tradition. Precisely this ever new claim regarding the unity, the fixity, and the universality of tradition is a sign of faith in both continuity and renewal.163 The acknowledgement of the apostolic origin of the transmitted deposit of faith as well is a matter of retrospective configuration of elements of faith which are endowed with apostolic authority. Often,  Thiel, Senses, 84.  Ibid., 90. 160  Ibid., 84. 161  Ibid., 91. 162  Ibid. 163  Ibid., 91f. 158

159



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

55

though not always, an unbroken line can be pointed out from the present to this authoritative past. Even when such an unbroken continuity is not evident, it is quite possible to distinguish after the fact a new configuration of doctrine and/or practices which together lead to the identification of a tradition where, before, it was not apparent.164 c) The Eschatological Nature of Tradition Besides a classic model of salvation-historical transmission of facts of salvation, guided by the Holy Spirit, Kasper proposes a new concept of tradition based on the self-gift of God through Jesus in the Holy Spirit. The New Testament, particularly in the writings of the apostles John and Paul, speaks of the self-gift of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection as a one-time event by means of which God’s kingdom, the bleibend gegenwärtigen neuen Äon, the permanent present new age, as Kasper calls it, has definitively begun. This eschatological reality, God’s future which has become the present, is determinative for a new concept of tradition in which the “regular” transmission of earthly events is no longer relevant. We humans do not have this ultimate reality at our disposal and are thus also unable to pass it on. We are determined by it, this reality has us at its disposal. Through the Holy Spirit we can share in it; through the Holy Spirit Jesus’s self-gift becomes present and active in us and in our world. This eschatological concept of tradition is introduced in both Kasper’s articles on the theological concept of tradition, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition” (1970), and “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip” (1987). However, as noted above, the two articles develop the concept in different ways. The older one contrasts the classic, salvationhistorical concept of tradition sharply with the new eschatological concept of tradition based on Christ’s self-surrender. He views the latter as a breach of existing forms of tradition. According to the later text, Christian tradition has a sacramental structure in which earthly reality is a sign and vessel of Christ’s definitive coming in the Spirit. We concluded that this later development of Kasper’s is less radical and implies less of a breach than the outlook in his earlier work. More allowance is made for human and earthly reality, in which tradition or transmission also plays an important part. At the same time, Kasper’s use of the sacramental model in his concept of tradition leaves plenty of room for e­ schatological  Thiel, Senses, 93f. gives as an example the development of the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception. 164

56

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

reality: the tradition represents the divine reality of the Kingdom of God in earthly signs, by which means everything is made new in the power of the Spirit. The “realized eschatology” as it is mentioned in the New Testament is indeed connected with the life in the Spirit, as it takes place in the Church and is received in the sacraments and is expressed in a Christian life praxis. Here, there is an “already” which, however, continues to form a field of tension with a “not yet.” Christians already live in the “new aeon,” but are also a part of a world that is still on the way there. This tension between the realized and still to be expected salvation in Christ is a characteristic of the concept of tradition that we have become acquainted with in Kasper. In the present of Church, liturgy, spirituality, and life praxis, the new age of God’s Kingdom already becomes a reality in the power of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, people still experience the brokenness, limitation, and sinfulness with which the Christian narrative is handed down and experienced. Here we may recognize both aspects of the concept of tradition that we distinguished above: on the one hand the human process in all its limitation and inadequacy, on the other hand the God-given and Spirit-guided nature of it. The Church is the place where the reality of God’s Kingdom is passed on in word and practice, both in all our human limitation and transience, and as a transcendent, heavenly reality. The monuments of tradition, including the liturgy, are symbols of the Kingdom that is present in a hidden way. In the monuments of tradition, testimonies and concretizations of the gospel of the coming Kingdom, God’s future is present in a sacramental way, as a representing sign, as Kasper phrases it.165 The eschatological nature of tradition once again underscores, proceeding from a different approach, the divine-human nature of the Christian process of tradition. 2. The Adequacy of the Concept “Monument of Tradition”: Change and Identity The concept of the monument or testimony of tradition with its constancy and stability are called into question in current thought on the topic. Within our theological concept of tradition, the idea of a monument is the element that most strongly calls forth the associations of the cultural concept of tradition: the tie with the past, the invariability of  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 93.

165



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

57

customs that have been handed down. The term arouses criticism, which prompts us to ask the question whether it is adequate for the purpose to which we wish to put it here. a) Criticism of the Concept “Tradition” Tradition is nowadays considered by many authors as a changeable reality that keeps receiving a new shape and content from the present. The authority of traditions that supposedly transmit an ancient, constant truth has been the object of criticism since the Enlightenment.166 The idea that they represent a constant truth in a reliable way is rejected as an illusion. T. Tilley, for example, draws attentions to the point of principle that every form of transmission is a betrayal, does an injustice to the original message.167 The receiver of what is transmitted will interpret it in his or her own way and make it serviceable to his or her own interests. Traditions, consequently, may give the impression of stability, and that is indeed what they are used for, but usually they are not so stable after all. Tilley phrases this succinctly: “Traditions are not fixed but fluid.”168 Elsewhere he says: “Every tradition is necessarily mutated, invented and reinvented as it is inculturated.”169 With both these statements, the author indicates that in the process of tradition, the reality transmitted is constantly changing. E. Hobsbawm, on whose theory he builds, emphasizes that traditions are invented or constructed with an eye to power or identity that is to be claimed.170 Thiel emphasizes the retrospective nature of designating a tradition: a tradition is only acknowledged as such after the fact and every generation may therefore distinguish a different trend in the past.171 More such examples of theories that emphasize the variable character of tradition could be presented. The idea that a tradition is a monument from the past, handed down by previous generations and coming to us in this way, is criticized in many different ways. While Congar and Kasper did give attention to the 166  Terrence W. Tilley, Inventing Catholic Tradition (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011), 19. 167  Ibid., 10: “In Latin, the word traditio means not only what was handed on but also treason. In fact, early Christian leaders who handed on the Sacred Scriptures to the Roman authorities were branded traditores. They were traitors.” 168  Ibid., 6. 169  Ibid., 42f. 170  Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 263-307, cited by Tilley, Inventing, 37. 171  Thiel, Senses, 82.

58

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

developmental nature of tradition and to hermeneutics, the influence that appropriation has on the received tradition, they still assumed the possibility of the transfer of God’s Word, the reality of salvation, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, manifesting itself in stable monuments or testimonies of tradition. Current theology, however, is influenced by the postmodern distrust regarding historical claims and truth claims. Traditions are viewed as instruments, compiled from historical fragments, by means of which the past is made to serve the interests of the present. In other words, there are fundamental questions as to the possibility of the existence of monuments, in the sense of historical remnants that are serviceable in the remembrance of a certain past by multiple generations. The idea is rather that there are loose fragments of the past that are arranged in different forms by each generation, in order to be able to tell a continually changing story. It is not possible to discuss one or more of these theories at length here. However, it is crucial to have a clear and well-founded view on tradition. b) The Identity of Christian Tradition With an eye to the question of liturgical reform, our main interest is in the relationship between the authority and the “changeability” of the monument of tradition. If a monument of tradition is an auctoritas, an authoritative source of data of faith, is it then necessarily stable and unchangeable in nature, or will development and renewal also play a part? How might development and renewal possibly take place, while the authority of a tradition endures? Is there actually a tradition, in the sense of an evident subject, in the course of time? We are dealing with the question as to the identity of a certain subject viewed over the course of an extended period of time. One theory on identity is offered by P. Ricoeur in his book Soi-même comme un autre. The outlook he develops in that book mainly applies to the identity of a person as permanence in time, but according to him can also be applied to a community.172 In conformity with this, we here apply his theory to the Church and its tradition. He distinguishes two forms of 172  Paul Ricoeur, Soi-même comme un autre (Paris: Seuil, 1990), 146: “Pour une grande part, en effet, l’identité d’une personne, d’une communauté, est faite de ces identifications-à des valeurs, des normes, des idéaux, des modèles, des héros, dans lesquels la personne, la communauté se reconnaissent.”



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

59

identity: the mêmeté and the ipséité, based on the Latin terms idem and ipse. In English, these terms can be rendered as: sameness and selfhood.173 In the first form, sameness, Ricoeur distinguishes three composing parts: in “numeric unity” the issue is something that is exactly the same as something else that precedes or follows it; it is opposed to plurality. Here, to know is to recognize: the same thing again. The second part, “qualitative unity,” concerns a great likeness and correspondence between multiple items, where small differences are unimportant. The third part of this notion of identity is the identity that is uninterrupted in time even if the phenomenon in question changes, for instance because of growth or ageing. In the latter case, the focus is on the structure and internal relationships of a phenomenon that make it remain the same, even if all its components were to be replaced.174 Whereas with mêmeté the question is: what am I?, with ipséité the focus is on the question: who am I? Permanence in time comes about in two ways in ipséité, on the one hand in the character, a set of customs, habits and values, models and heroes which one identifies with,175 on the other hand in being true to one’s word, faithful to promises, to friendship.176 In the first, character, mêmeté and ipséité almost coincide, but in the second, being true to one’s word, ipse detaches itself from idem because here future-oriented conviction and intention are at issue. In the tradition of the Church, these two aspects of identity can also be distinguished: on the one hand the more external and terminological unity of mêmeté, on the other the evangelical inspiration and loyalty to the promised truth of ipséité. Ricoeur sees the unity of the two forms of identity in a dialectical process expressed in a narrative unity.177 The story of the Gospel keeps being told and handed down with familiar, concordant elements, but also with surprising elements that break the familiar pattern. There is a concordance disconcordante, a nonconcordant concordance, that has to be placed within the dialectic between “sameness” and “selfhood.”178 This form of identity as described by Ricoeur is accordingly something highly dynamic, in which we recognize traits of “the permanence in time” of Christian tradition. What is important in the development of our argument is that the subject of  Ricoeur, Soi-même, 140; cf. Paul Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, trans. Kathleen Blamey (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 2-3. 174  Ricoeur, Soi-même, 140-142. 175  Ibid., 144-147. 176  Ibid., 148-149. 177  Ibid., 167. 178  Ibid., 176. 173

60

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

tradition is not a person or a community but the Church, and the Holy Spirit in the Church.179 The identity of the Christian tradition is determined by this conjunction of the divine and the human and is precisely on this point characterized by the tension between mêmeté and ipséité. The identity of the outside, “sameness,” fits in with the human, institutional aspect of tradition, while the inside, “selfhood,” both as regards its character and as regards loyalty to the promise, fits in with the hidden workings of the Holy Spirit in the human heart and in the human community. In the hidden inside of the Church, God and human being work together inextricably, both in what changes and in what stays the same. In the story being passed on, the two form a dynamic unity. The identity of the Christian tradition can be thought of in this way as a narrative and dialectic occurrence. The monument of tradition is marked by this distinction between the divine warp and the human weft of a fabric. Each monument of tradition is a product of the Holy Spirit working in and through human activity and culture. The two cannot be separated. Each reception by each new generation will look at this with a fresh gaze and assess it differently. According to Thiel, in transmitted beliefs, doctrines, and practices one must distinguish between the infallible and the noninfallible elements.180 Here, he uses the word “infallible” in the sense of “indispensable” or “constitutive,” “brought about by the Holy Spirit.” The noninfallible elements can lose their status as part of tradition. The infallible ones are indistinguishably interwoven with the whole of the canon of tradition.181 Monuments of tradition thus have an infallible core which, however, cannot always be infallibly distinguished by human beings. On the basis of this distinction there will always be not only stability but also change. Kasper, too, emphasizes this dynamic and critical concept of tradition.182 This is an integral part of the monument of tradition, which is handed down and respected as a whole that is, however, not changeless. Another matter has to do with the reception of this changing tradition. The monument of tradition is, as we saw, a crystallized form that mediates in the transmission of the reality of faith. Tradition, however, is not only this passing on of elements of a monument of tradition, but also a process of trying and testing them. Is it, according to the current  According to Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 81-109.  Thiel, Senses, 48. 181  Ibid. 182  Kasper, “Christsein ohne Tradition?,” 20. 179 180



CHAPTER II: TRADITION AS A DIVINE-HUMAN REALITY

61

way of thinking, faithful to the normative origin of the tradition and does it answer the current questions? Kasper introduces this element in his two criteria of tradition that we already briefly discussed.183 God’s Word ought to have a certain persuasiveness, … for true is, according to the authors of the Bible, that which, in history, shows and proves itself to be what it professes to be, true is that which proves itself in historical association.184

Kasper here formulates the following two criteria. First of all, the testimony in question has to find acceptance and faith in the Church. Whether it is listened to and followed is a test of the reliability of a certain doctrine or practice.185 The second criterion is that today’s world also has to be able to view the doctrine or practice in question as a relevant query or a challenge.186 The truth and authority of a monument of tradition have to become apparent again and again in its continuing reception. But not only the current Bewährung, reliability of a tradition is tested, but the connection with the past as well. The present generation judges a current belief, doctrine, or practice and determines the degree to which it forms a continuity with the previous generation, according to Thiel.187 In the reception there is thus a moment of judgement. The various monuments of tradition are marked by different forms of change and renewal. Parts of them, for instance utterances of Church Fathers or the Magisterium that are no longer accepted, liturgical texts or practices that have fallen into disuse, are no longer handed down.188  Kasper, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 175-178.  Ibid., 175: “denn wahr ist nach dem Verständnis der biblischen Schriftsteller das, was sich geschichtlich als das herausstellt und bewährt, was es zu sein vorgibt, wahr ist was sich im geschichtlichen Umgang bewährt.” 185  Ibid., 176. 186  Ibid., 177. 187  Thiel, Senses, 86. 188  A clear example of this is the renewed view on the Jewish people as it is expressed in the Council declaration Nostra Aetate 4, and which led to an adaptation of the text of the intercessory prayer in the liturgy of Good Friday. Because of this, anti-Jewish passages in the works of the Fathers of the Church and in magisterial texts are also no longer considered part of the doctrine of the Catholic faith, which is proved by declarations of or in name of the ecclesial authority. See Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church by the papal Commission for religious relations with the Jews, dated June 24, 1985 (http://www. christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-lebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-dellacommissione/en2.html; accessed 7 July 2021) 183

184

62

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

Sometimes, old elements that have passed out of use become current again, through new points of view or interests. New doctrines or practices are introduced and more or less gradually become generally accepted. The monuments of tradition are thus marked by expansion and growth, decrease and decline, but also by reuse, bringing old data up to date. From the perspective of the present, the assession of the monument of tradition is based on those elements that either are or are not currently being “used.” The monuments of tradition thus act as storerooms that contain what is necessary and correct, although it may not always be clear what is most relevant at a certain moment, in a certain context. The stability of tradition is consequently not primarily founded in an establishable historical continuity. We rather find it in the source it bases itself on. Tradition is always interpretation of a given, something that has been received, namely the Word of God, Christ himself. The reflection of God’s Word, the revelation of God in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, is the substance of tradition. Personal convictions that are not based on the reception and interpretation of that transmitted Word cannot be tradition. The question is whether tradition always concerns historically reliable processes. Continuity is not always demonstrable. New developments take place for which there is no precedent, and which nevertheless claim to be part of tradition. The judgement whether they belong to tradition does not lie in establishing continuity, but in the degree to which they are supported by God’s revelation in Christ. If current constructions by means of which traditions are brought into being are to be authentic, they must also be reliable interpretations of God’s Word, confirmed by the Church. Customs, opinions, and doctrines that are handed down as reliable interpretations of that Word are not the only possible bearers of tradition. They are determined by the context in which the traditor became acquainted with the tradition in question and the context in which the tradita are transmitted, according to Tilley. If these two contexts are widely divergent, so that the receiver is unable to appropriate the message, it may be necessary to change what is transmitted, precisely in order to remain faithful to its content. It may be necessary to choose different concepts, metaphors, and actions, that are more geared to the receiving party and at the same time represent the tradition, God’s Word, faithfully in these new circumstances. As Tilley notes: “Paradoxically, fidelity to a tradition may sometimes involve extensive reworking of the tradita.”189  Tilley, Inventing, 29.

189

Chapter III

Liturgy as a Form of Tradition Introduction For both Congar and Kasper, the liturgy is an important monument of tradition.1 Congar even calls it, quoting with approval J.-B. Bossuet, “the principal instrument of the Church’s Tradition.”2 This chapter considers the question: in what way is the liturgy a form of tradition? In this context tradition is taken to mean both the process of transfer analyzed in the previous chapter, and the monument that plays an important part in that process. In what respects is the liturgy a part or a form of the Christian tradition? 1.  Liturgy as Transfer, a Form of Tradition According to Congar, Christian doctrine considers God’s plan “one of mission and tradition.” By this, he means that God sends someone with an assignment and that the object of this is subsequently passed on to others, as a legacy for the next generation.3 A transmission then takes place, a transfer from one person to another, in the same but also in following generations.4 One of the phenomena in which the process of Christian tradition takes place is the liturgy. Liturgy is a form of tradition understood in this sense. This section considers the way in which this is so, and begins again from the Council’s definition of tradition: It is quite right to think of the liturgy as the enacting of the priestly role of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy, the sanctification of human beings is being expressed through signs accessible to the senses, and carried 1  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 183-191; The Meaning of Tradition, 100106; Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 93. 2  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 191: “… le principal instrument de la Tradition de l’Église”; trans.: Tradition and Traditions, 434. 3  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 18; trans.: Tradition and Traditions, 239. 4  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 18.

64

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

out in a way appropriate to each of them. Furthermore, the mystical body of Jesus Christ, that is the head and the members, is together giving complete and definitive public expression to its worship.5

In the two dimensions of worship discussed above, God’s sanctifying focus on the human being and the human cultic focus on God, two things come to the fore: on the one hand the reality of salvation, that which is proffered liturgically in Word and sacrament, and on the other the way in which this is received, expressed, experienced, and responded to in faith. In liturgical rituals, the process of tradition happens again and again: the self-surrender of God and the appropriation of this by the human being. In order to determine the characteristics proper to the liturgy as a form of tradition, two questions remain the focus: (1) What exactly makes liturgy tradition? Which features characterize it pre-eminently as a form of tradition? and (2): What is the characteristic of liturgy as a form of tradition, as distinct from other forms of tradition? The first question leads us to the term “transfer.” The essence of each process of tradition is the transfer, the transmission, of a certain content in the course of time, from one generation to the next. In this transfer there is, as we saw, always a giving party and a receiving party. Clearly, the liturgy is of all things highly characterized by this process of transfer. Here after all, liturgy does not mean the texts and rituals described and preserved in books, but the preserved and transmitted texts and rituals that are currently being spoken, sung, and done in worship services. Liturgical actions that have a strong character of transfer are preaching and the celebration of the sacraments. It is clear that there, the reality of faith is offered and passed on. However, the term “transfer” also presupposes acceptance and appropriation, because otherwise the transfer cannot be completed. In worship, people give evidence that they have accepted and appropriated what was given to them and subsequently express their response to this gift. These two aspects of the process of tradition display a strong parallelism with the two phases of the definition of liturgy cited. The two phases or dimensions of the liturgy are the sanctifying and the glorifying aspects.6 The first is what God does, directed towards the human being, the second is the human activity directed towards God. In principle, but also in practice, the starting point of the process of  Sacrosanctum Concilium 7, cf. I.2., note 26.  Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy, 26f.

5

6



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

65

tradition is always the first phase, that of sanctification, as it takes place liturgically in the actions of preaching, celebration of the sacraments, and blessing. This phase evokes the next one, that of reception, appropriation, to which the reaction of the human person also belongs. The process of transfer is, as it were, a word that calls for an answer, namely the second phase, the human activity of worship, praising God in prayer, confession, profession, and song. These two aspects, God’s self-gift in Word and sacrament, and the human appropriation of this expressed in cultic actions, together form an indivisible unity in the Christian liturgy, as is emphasized by the Council’s definition. P. De Clerck illustrates this in a striking way in his analysis of the Eucharistic prayer.7 In the analysis of the concept of tradition in chapter II, the two parallel aspects, God’s self-gift and human appropriation, were not seen to be separable. Mediated by the monuments of tradition, they are the links that form the chain of tradition. The similarity between tradition and liturgy thus consists in them both being characterized by two closely related structural elements, in short, the “giver” and the “receiver.” The liturgy is here a special form of the more general phenomenon of tradition. In a certain sense, the reception of God’s grace in the liturgy and the expression of thanks in response even form one and the same movement, as De Clerck observes. He plays with the two meanings of the French grâce in the following quote: “… nous rendons à Dieu la grâce qu’il nous fait en la lui offrant,” “we give to God the thanks / the grace that He prepares for us while we offer it to Him.” In this context he also quotes L.-M. Chauvet, who even identifies the two actions: “The Christian mode of appropriation is disappropriation; that of ‘receiving’ is ‘giving back’, giving thanks. In giving back to God in thanksgiving his grace, Jesus Christ himself, given in the sacrament, the Church receives Him.”8 7  Paul De Clerck, “La tradition en acte: la prière eucharistique,” La Maison-Dieu 178 (1989): 81-92 describes the Eucharistic prayer as tradition-in-action, an alternation of proclaiming and representing the gospel and receiving and assimilating it in order to express it once again. On p. 87 we find a description of thankful remembrance as a form of tradition: “Les œuvres de Dieu sont rappelées; dans la louange et la proclamation, la tradition/transmission en est faite. Elle ne pourrait pas avoir lieu si elle n’avait pas été reçue par le corps qui en fait mémoire; transmission suppose réception.” 8  Louis-Marie Chauvet, Symbole et sacrement: une rélecture sacramentelle de l’existence chrétienne (Paris: Cerf, 1987), 283, quoted by De Clerck, “La tradition en acte,” 90: “… le mode chrétien de l’appropriation et la désappropriation; celui du ‘prendre’ est le ‘rendre’, le ‘rendre grâce’. Parce que la grâce est hors de l’ordre de la valeur, c’est en rendant à Dieu sa grâce même, le Christ Jésus donné en sacrement, que l’Église la reçoit”; trans.: Louis-Marie Chauvet, Symbol and Sacrament: A Sacramental Reinterpretation of Christian Existence (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), 276. Emphasis original.

66

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

In this outlook of Chauvet’s, appropriation proves to be a paradoxical concept. We can only make God’s gift our own in an attitude of gratefully giving back. God’s gift to the ecclesial community and this community’s reception of it and response to it in thanksgiving and sacrifice thus form a close unity theologically and liturgically. In other words, there is a substantial, structural correspondence between tradition and liturgy, and on the basis of that also a kinship, so that the heart of the liturgy is itself tradition, transfer, handing down and accepting and responding to the divine reality. In answer to the first question we have thus pointed to the characteristic of transfer, so that liturgy has to be called a form of tradition, which it shares with other forms of tradition. Liturgy shares this traditional nature with other manifestations which are also characterized by such a transfer, for example catechesis in the form of a class situation. There is, after all, no less of a correspondence between the concept of tradition and teaching and receiving a lesson, in which the deposit of faith is also passed on over multiple generations. The liturgy, however, is a form of tradition in a unique, distinct way. That is what the second question relates to. Here, the issue is what sets the liturgy as a form of tradition apart from other forms. Congar distinguishes five monuments of tradition, but to those more could be added.9 These are usually large groups of texts from the tradition of Christianity that invite acceptance of their contents and/or implementation in practice. Among these monuments the liturgy has its own place, as described by Congar.10 In his work, eight aspects of this specific character of the liturgy as a form of tradition can be distinguished. The liturgy is a specific form of tradition because it (1) contains the mystery of Christ in word and ritual; (2) is based on Scripture, which precisely in the liturgy is given its deepest, Christological interpretation; and (3) is a current, living event in the Church. Furthermore, the liturgy (4) is not limited to a verbal or textual event, but forms its own type of ritual reality consisting of various actions which are not only intellectually acknowledged, but also experienced and celebrated. De Clerck underscores this aspect as follows: “… this does 9  Te Velde, “Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition,” 198: “… the magisterium’s texts, liturgy, the fathers and preachers of the church, the rules and practices of ecclesiastic life, the doctrines of theologians and human reason generally.” 10  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 183-191 and The Meaning of Tradition, 100-106; see for the following eight points: Te Velde, “Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition,” 200-204.



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

67

not concern an argumentation, a lesson, or a command to express oneself. The tradition transmits God’s grace in the deepest intimacy.”11 The liturgy is also (5) a representation of the whole of the deposit of faith that is embodied in (6) a rich metaphorical language. Furthermore, the liturgy has (7) a preserving, maintaining and (8) a communicating, instructing function. The eight characteristics show that the liturgy corresponds to our concept of tradition in its very own, special way. A ninth aspect, which we mention separate from but which is connected to the third, is the communal character. The transfer taking place in the process of tradition is not an individual process, but a fundamentally communal one.12 Although there is a very personal element of appropriation and experience in the liturgy, this is nonetheless determined by the community that shapes the collective handing down and receiving of the reality of faith. Tradition is an expression of and is defining for the identity of the community. In the texts and rituals – and the opinions expressed therein – which a community derives from tradition, it expresses who it is or wants to be. The liturgy in particular has a strongly communal nature. In liturgical celebrations, a community gathers and faith is communicated to the community of believers by various representatives of the community of the Church. For this reason as well, the liturgy is to a great extent a manifestation of tradition. Liturgy as tradition on the one hand represents the self-giving of God in a powerful way, through its close connection with sacred Scripture and the fact that it contains the mystery of Christ. The liturgy makes Christ present, not as an element from the past, but as a living reality here and now. On the other hand, the liturgy makes the reception and appropriation of God’s self-gift in Christ possible because it is a current, living event in the community of the Church, an experienced and celebrated reality by means of which the reality of faith can be properly communicated. More than the other forms of tradition, the liturgy thus provides a living reality in which Christ is made present in preaching and sacrament and which people can take part in in celebration. This is the unique way in which liturgy is a form of tradition. The Orthodox theologian A. Schmemann has also made mention of this unique role of the liturgy as a form of tradition. His words summarize well this second 11  De Clerck, “La tradition en acte,” 87: “Car il ne s’agit pas d’un discours, d’un enseignement, d’un consigne à se communiquer. La tradition transmit au plus intime la grâce de Dieu.” 12  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 19.

68

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

part of the section: “Liturgy is … the living norm of theology. It is in the liturgy that the sources of faith – the Bible and tradition – become a living reality.”13 2.  Liturgy and Salvation History The previous section argued, as a first aspect of the liturgy as a form of tradition, that the liturgy contains the mystery of Christ. This revelation of God in Christ, is closely connected with human history. God reveals himself to human beings in historical events. Events from the past are understood as actions of God, for the sake of his people. They reach their apex and realization in the person of Christ and can therefore together be denoted as the mystery of Christ. The Church too, which arises from the movement of followers of Jesus, is a part of this mystery. Christian tradition begins with a faithful understanding of historical events. In and through the large and small moments in the history of a human person and a community, believers recognize the hand of God. We are here referring to the history of salvation. 1. Salvation History The term tradition is inextricably connected with the notion of salvation history. Tradition, as God’s self-surrender through Christ in the Holy Spirit to the end of enduring presence in the Church,14 must be considered an aspect of salvation history. Because God imparts himself to people in history with the intention that they receive and pass on this divine self-gift, salvation history is itself tradition. Liturgy, as an expression of God’s revelation in history, is a part of salvation history. God’s salvific Word is mediated by the language and signs of the liturgy. As a form of transmission of the divine revelation, the liturgy is seen as a form of tradition. In order to understand what is meant by the liturgy as a manifestation of tradition, the liturgy must first be examined as a part of salvation history.

13  Alexander Schmemann, “Theology and Liturgical Tradition,” in Liturgy and Tradition: Theological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990), 11-20, at 14. 14  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 92.



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

69

C. Vagaggini in his Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy, offers a theory on the place of the liturgy in the structure of salvation, in which the liturgy is viewed against the background of salvation history. He considers the liturgy to be a path along which the sense of God’s revelation reaches us.15 Vagaggini speaks of salvation history as the sacred history, always in the making, of God’s interventions in the world, to draw His rational creatures to Him, to communicate His divine life to them, and thus to bring about His universal reign.16

This intervention of God in history is in fact a reciprocity, an encounter between God and human. God’s entrance into history demands of the human being a response, an answer. God thus places himself across from the human being and asks him or her, in a certain sense, also to take up a position across from God.17 Salvation history is, accordingly, the history of God with humanity. In the Old Testament, this history takes place in the lives of Abraham and the other patriarchs and matriarchs, Moses, and the kings and the prophets. In the New Testament, the culmination and fulfillment of those revelations has come in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. His story continues in the sending of the Spirit and the birth of the Church. In various literary forms and genres, the Bible, in Old and New Testament, offers a number of principal moments of that history. The person of Christ, his incarnation, his life, death, and resurrection, forms the culmination and fulfillment of this. The whole of salvation history is in a sense the mystery of Christ, insofar as before Christ’s coming everything was directed towards Him and after Him everything shines with his light. Since his coming, the focus is on the participation of humanity and all of creation in his fulness.18 Within this history of salvation, the period of the Church can be distinguished in particular, i.e., the time between the Ascension and Second Coming of Christ. The Church has received the Holy Spirit and is God’s means of imparting Christ’s fullness of life to humanity, by handing down his gospel from generation to generation, until the Parousia.19 The Church is the messianic community that forms a deep unity with Christ and is for that

 Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions, 3f.  Ibid., 4. 17  Ibid., 6f. 18  Ibid., 15f. 19  Ibid., 16f. 15

16

70

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

reason called his body. Through the Church, the Body of Christ, contact with God in Christ is offered to humanity. The Church has various ways in which people enter into communion with God through Christ. Among these, the liturgy has a special place. The liturgy can only be understood with an eye to the Church, which in turn can only be understood as connected with Christ. And Christ can only be understood against the background of God’s great plan of salvation in which He plays the central part. The liturgy is the special, first, and essential path by which, during the time between the Ascension and the Parousia, salvation history, as the mystery of Christ and the Church, is fulfilled.20 It is the task of the liturgy to bring the people to God and bring God to the people. 2. Liturgy as a Sign But how does the liturgy fulfill this task? To answer this question, Vagaggini develops the idea of the liturgy as a sign. In doing this, he is following in the footsteps of the scholastic theology of the sacraments, but applying this more broadly to the whole of the liturgy. Two aspects play a central part in this sign character: the signs point to God’s reality of salvation and also bring it about; they do what they mean.21 Christ works through the signs of the liturgy. The signs that can be perceived by the senses refer to the invisible, spiritual reality and make it present as a salvific presence. On the one hand this is the sanctification of the Church performed by God, on the other it is the veneration of God by the Church; these two aspects of the liturgy cannot be separated. Through the liturgical language of signs, God sanctifies the human being and the human being glorifies God. For Vagaggini, the liturgy is the whole of the signs, efficacious and perceptible by the senses, of the sanctification and worship of the Church.22 The liturgical signs of which the Church’s celebrations consist thus point to salvation history and make Christ’s grace available, which He gives to humanity through his death and resurrection. Moreover, they express the prayer and sacrifice of Christ as they were announced and fulfilled in salvation history. The liturgy has bearing on the whole of salvation history, the present, the past, and the future. The past salvific  Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions, 18.  Ibid., 23. 22  Ibid., 27. 20 21



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

71

actions of Christ are remembered, the future of God’s Kingdom is expected, and in the present sanctifying grace is received. Vagaggini also sees a fourth dimension, in the missionary and binding nature of the liturgy. Participation is only possible in faith and with a receptive attitude, and moreover with the readiness to put the gospel into practice in the reality of one’s moral, spiritual, and social life.23 In this way, one may determine a fourfold significance of the entire liturgy. In its symbolic value, the liturgy thus embraces the whole of salvation history, the mystery of Christ and the Church. In it, God keeps approaching human beings in Christ, and in Christ, human beings keep approaching God, according to Vagaggini.24 The liturgical signs, then, have a mediating function and possess the efficacy necessary for that role. This aspect raises further questions. For are these signs not part of human and earthly reality? What distinguishes them from other rituals that seemingly do not have this special effect? What is this ability to mediate based on? Vagaggini here turns to the classic doctrine of the opus operatum, as established by the Council of Trent. The sacraments, this doctrine reads, bring about and confer the grace that they signify as a sign ex opera operato, on the basis of the act performed, if the minister has the authority and the proper intentions, and if the receiver is capable of receiving them and has the proper intention or disposition.25 This sacramental gift of grace is an objective reality, not based on or caused by the feelings or intentions of the human participants in question, but presupposing the free cooperation and consent of the faithful receiver.26 There is thus an encounter between God and the human person, in which the eternal God offers his gift but respects human freedom and asks commitment and receptiveness.27 The sacraments, core acts within the whole of the liturgy, have such a character of instruments in God’s hand through which God wants to bless the human person in Christ. That they have this power is thanks to the fact that the sacraments were given through and in Christ. The Church considers them as willed by God in Christ and even instituted by Him.28 Historically, one may examine the human origin of the various sacraments, how they arose from cultural customs, making use of elements  Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions, 69-93.  Ibid., 91. 25  Council of Trent, sessio VII, Decretum de sacramentis, canones 6-8, DH 1606-1608. 26  Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions, 100f. 27  Ibid., 101. 28  Ibid., 99. 23

24

72

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

bound to a certain time and place. Faith teaches that God wants to give his gifts to human beings in and through those human rituals. Besides the specific sacramental signs, the Church has other ecclesial rituals that belong to the liturgy: the feast days of the liturgical year, the exorcisms and blessings, consecrations and other sacramentals, the processions and professions, and the liturgy of the hours. Classic doctrine states that the gracious efficacy of these liturgical acts mainly comes about ex opere operantis ecclesiae, that is, through the act as an ecclesial act.29 The Church, praying and acting in conformity to the intentions of Christ, may trust in the effective fruitfulness of its liturgical praxis. It is doubtful whether the efficacy of the sacraments and that of the other liturgical acts can be separated so absolutely. The prayers and the blessings of the Church, after all, intend to be a continuation of what began in Christ. The liturgical activity of the body cannot be considered separately from the head and can, according to Vagaggini, with certainty be considered to be filled with grace.30 We have already established that the liturgy is the whole of the signs, efficacious and perceptible by the senses, of the sanctification and the worship of the Church. These two aspects are fundamentally interconnected. Some liturgical acts, such as the liturgy of the hours, are first of all an expression of the glorifying worship of the Church directed to God, others, such as the sacraments and the blessings, were for a long time considered mainly as means of human sanctification. Vagaggini emphasizes, however, in line with Thomas Aquinas, that in both forms of liturgy both the sanctifying and the cultic aspect are present. A blessing is always also a form of praise, and the reception of a sacrament is accompanied by and directed towards the worship of God.31 The whole of the liturgy, in all its parts, ultimately intends the glorification of God and the sanctification of the human person necessary for this. In each part, the division between these two aspects is of course different. The liturgy is just as much a matter of God sanctifying people into his service as one of people wanting to glorify God.32

 Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions, 112.  Ibid., 112f. 31  Ibid., 125; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera Omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P.M. edita 12 (Rome: Congr. de Prop. Fidei, 1906), III.63.6 resp.: “… sacramenta novae legis ad duo ordinantur: scilicet in remedium peccati, et ad cultum divinum.” 32  Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions, 125f. 29 30



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

73

3. The Efficacy of the Liturgy Returning to the question we asked above, on the gracious efficacy of the liturgy, consisting of human rituals, we may state that the liturgy is at the same time a divine and a human reality. It must indeed be this, if it is to perform its mediating role properly. Because of their connection to the actions of Jesus as bringer of divine salvation, the liturgical signs are instruments through which God gives his grace. Because of their origin as rituals originating in human history and culture and consisting of earthly elements, they express human worship and human receptiveness to God. The whole of the liturgy is a complex of human acts, characterized by the people who perform them, within the circumstances of their time and culture, the meaning of which is understood in the participant’s faithful perspective. The two aspects, the human and the divine, are inextricably intertwined. That ritual complex is recognized in the perspective of faith as an act of divine grace. E. Schillebeeckx, too, in “Towards a Rediscovery of the Christian Sacraments” which he wrote towards the end of his career, pursued this question of the relationship between the divine and the human in the liturgy. He writes: To Christians this ritual totality itself is God’s means of grace, actualized at a cognitive, emotional and aesthetic level, in and via the inherent performative power of liturgical celebration inspired by the Christian faith …. The Christian faith of all participants in ritual liturgy … is nonetheless the essence of all this, and is, at the same time, the conduit of God’s act in Jesus Christ.33

In this newer way of speaking about the grace-giving function of the liturgy, there is mention of a performance rather than a sign, and there is a greater emphasis on human activity and the crucial role of faith. Essentially, however, the issue here is the same as in Vagaggini, namely that God’s grace works through human and earthly reality. The role of faith, however, is an important difference in view on the efficacy of liturgy between Vagaggini and the later Schillebeeckx. Whereas Vagaggini considers it to be sufficient that the human person does not erect barriers and has the proper disposition and receptiveness, Schillebeeckx rightly stresses the importance of an explicit Christian faith 33  Edward Schillebeeckx OP, “Towards a Rediscovery of the Christian Sacraments: Ritualizing Religious Elements in Daily Life,” in Ordo: Bath, Word, Prayer, Table: A Liturgical Primer in Honor of Gordon W. Lathrop, ed. Dirke G. Lange and Dwight W. Vogel (Akron, OH: OSL Publications, 2005), 6-34, at 27.

74

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

on the part of the receiver of the sacrament. This emphasis brings the person celebrating liturgy into the picture to a greater extent as an active subject. He or she is normally not just a passive receiver, but an actively believing and affirming Christian. In this way, the liturgy becomes more of a reciprocal, dialogical event, in which God and human being, despite the infinite difference between the two, appear as partners in Christ. 3.  Liturgy in the Present, between Past and Future Of the nine aspects of the specificity of the liturgy as a form of tradition enumerated above, we described the third of those as: a current, living event in the Church. On this, Congar says: For the Church, the liturgy is not a dead monument, a kind of Pantheon to be visited as one visits a museum, but a home which is always lived in, the conditioning envelope or atmosphere of its whole life.34

The liturgy is a living event that keeps taking place in a completely new way in churches and all sorts of other locations. Communities that belong to the Church in one way or another convene and celebrate liturgy, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Liturgy is first of all an event in the present. If there were no liturgy being celebrated now, in the present, the phenomenon liturgy would not exist. Liturgy as a form of tradition hands the liturgical elements on to subsequent generations within the context of and with an eye to the current celebration. The relationship between present and past in the liturgy is filled with tension. We place the point of departure in the present, in the extant community of believers celebrating its faith. This community, however, is positioned within a certain Christian, Catholic tradition, which the Catholic community joins in with and bases itself on. The tradition is thus constitutive and characteristic of its identity. It joins in what is proffered by a larger Church community and preceding generations. The liturgy is realized in the present with the aid of elements presented by the past. It is precisely on the basis of that transmitted heritage that the current generation has knowledge of what liturgy is and is able to 34  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 184: “Pour l’Église, la liturgie n’est pas un monument mort, une sorte de Panthéon qu’on visiterait comme un musée, mais un foyer toujours habité, l’enveloppe et le milieu même de sa vie”; trans.: Tradition and Traditions, 428.



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

75

c­ elebrate liturgy. The current generation does not come up with this on its own. It is of course possible to perform a contemporary ritual, with words and gestures that express a contemporary life experience. But Christian liturgy in the classic sense of the word cannot arise from nothing in the present. It joins in with what earlier generations did, which ultimately joined in with the beginning: Christ’s self-gift. Liturgy is a heritage that is handed down and that would not exist without the tradition that hands it on to the present. But, as described above, liturgy is equally a current, living event that would not exist if there were no community in the present wanting to actualize that heritage in a celebration. We have consistently placed the emphasis on tradition being a living concept. The liturgy as a process of tradition shares in the characteristic of all tradition, namely that it is never finished. Liturgy is a human, historical happening that keeps developing along with the whole of human existence. No generation will come across a liturgy that is fully developed. One might say that the liturgy is an eschatological reality: the true liturgy is celebrated in the Kingdom of God. Here on earth, the liturgy is on its way towards that and offers a foretaste of it. “The liturgy is served on earth, and … it is accomplished in heaven …,” says Schmemann.35 On the basis of this awareness of the provisional nature of the celebration of the mystery of Christ, each period of history will give it new dimensions, springing from its own experience of faith. Liturgy is, accordingly, a reality that is realized in history but at the same time transcends history. Liturgy as tradition is a journey of giving and receiving, towards the full realization of the liturgy. Each celebration that has been concluded belongs to the past and is not really liturgy anymore. It does belong to the liturgical heritage, to the monument of tradition, but it is not liturgy in the true sense, because the liturgy only exists in the present. In future celebrations, these elements will be used again and become living liturgy again. Liturgy as tradition is expressed by, but never coincides with, certain manifestations (testimonies, monuments) of that tradition; it transcends them by its current, actual nature. Does this mean that form and content of the liturgy are subject to constant change? In itself, this does not yet say anything about the development and reform of the liturgy. We just emphasize here is that liturgy 35  Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987), 218; cf. 221. Schmemann’s observations clearly root in the Orthodox liturgical experience. Although he does not give enough attention to the earthly, historical and human character of the liturgy, his theological position seems to me a necessary addition to western liturgical thinking.

76

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

only exists insofar as it is current. Every time a liturgical act takes place, and only at that time, the liturgical reality is present. The fact that time goes on and changes and that the participants and the circumstances change, means that the liturgical celebration will always be different as well. At the same time they remain essentially the same, because the origin, Christ’s self-gift, and the aim, the Kingdom of God, are always the same. The liturgy, along with the whole of Christian tradition, is of an eschatological nature.36 The coming and the self-gift of Christ can ultimately not be simply passed on, but in their own way become a present reality here and now, proceeding from the completion of God’s Kingdom, especially in the liturgical celebrations. From the very beginning of Christianity, liturgy has been experienced as a participation in and a communion with what the Church was simultaneously still expecting, the Kingdom of God. “The whole newness, the uniqueness of the Christian leitourgia was in its eschatological nature as the presence here and now of the future parousia, as the epiphany of that which is to come, as communion with ‘the world to come’,” Schmemann writes.37 The liturgy gives the Church the possibility of encountering the coming Christ in the present and witnessing the eternal light while still on earth. For Schmemann, the eschatological dimension of the liturgy is expressed in the evangelical concept of the Kingdom of God which, according to Jesus’s proclamation, is near. The symbolic reality of the liturgy is a union of perceptible reality with the spiritual reality of God’s Kingdom. The liturgy is a symbol of divine reality, that is, it manifests and communicates it.38 For Schmemann, “symbol” thus does not mean “illustration” or “reference.” He says: … the essence of the symbol lies in the fact that in it the dichotomy between reality and symbolism (as unreality) is overcome: reality is experienced above all as the fulfilment of the symbol, and the symbol is comprehended as the fulfilment of reality.39

In the symbol, then, reality is revealed and appears according to its essence. Conversely, the symbol also has something provisional about it, it is waiting for fulfillment and realization. In the symbol it is notably a  Kasper, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 173f.  Schmemann, The Eucharist, 43; cf. idem, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1966, 41996), 72. 38  Schmemann, The Eucharist, 39. 39  Ibid., 39f. 36 37



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

77

transcendent reality that becomes accessible, attainable. In giving access to that reality of God’s mystery, the symbol finds fulfillment. In a symbolical way, so understood, liturgy makes the Kingdom of God present. The Eucharist, in particular, is the actualization of the new aeon. “The Eucharist or Lord’s Supper is … the actualization of the new aeon within the old, the presence and manifestation in this age of the Kingdom of the Age to come.”40 The Kingdom of God is the union with God, the loving bond and knowledge between God and human, for which the human being was created, the goal of salvation history that was realized in Christ.41 In a hidden way, this reality is made present and communicated in the liturgy. This reality is only accessible in faith: “… for those who have believed in it and accepted it, the kingdom is already here and now, more obvious than any of the ‘realities’ surrounding us.”42 This eschatological presence, however, is permanently connected with the historical coming of Christ on earth, his death on the cross, and his resurrection. To put it in technical terms: the final eschatology cannot be disconnected from the realized eschatology. The Kingdom of God, which is Christ himself, is a reality that has already come and at the same time is yet to be expected. In the liturgy, in the time between past and future, that reality is truly present, in remembrance and expectation. Christ is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb 13:8). This is where the unchangeable element lies, the identity of past, present, and future in the person of Christ. 4.  Liturgy as a Source for Doctrine The main question discussed in this chapter is in what way liturgy is a manifestation of tradition. We have seen that this question can essentially be answered by determining the role of the liturgy in salvation history. Mention was made of the divine gift of salvation, as it came to us in history before, in, and after Christ, being contained and transmitted in the liturgy. This salvation history takes place in the liturgy, people become involved in God’s self-gift through Christ in the Spirit. What Christians experience and believe about the relationship between God and human beings, they have experienced in the liturgy and also expressed in it, and  Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 73.  Schmemann, The Eucharist, 40f. 42  Ibid., 41f. 40 41

78

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

subsequently also come to understand and appropriate on the basis of that same liturgy. The liturgy is accordingly both a source for and an expression of the Christian doctrine. One could call this a reciprocal influence43 or a dialectical relationship between theology and liturgy.44 In her book Ecclesia orans: Liturgie als Herausforderung für die Dogmatik, J. Knop distinguishes three models for discussing this relationship between liturgy and doctrine.45 The first two are classic themes in the history of theology: the adage Lex orandi, lex credendi, ascribed to Prosper of Aquitaine, and the doctrine of the loci theologici, developed by Melchior Cano. A more recent model can be found in the liturgyhistorical movement of liturgical theology, of which Schmemann is the initiator. We will discuss these three approaches from the perspective of our central question about liturgy as a form of the Christian tradition. 1. Liturgy as an Expression of the Faith of the Church The premise that the liturgy is a source for dogmatic reflection, then, is often connected with the adage Lex orandi, lex credendi.46 By means of its texts and acts, the liturgy, based on sacred Scripture and celebrated everywhere, shows what the Church believes and is a normative source for the doctrine of faith. In close relationship with the other sources and partially dependent on it, the liturgy is a specific kind of source of data of faith. It is this, as a manifestation of what has been handed down in the church, or of the testimony of tradition.47 Because the liturgy in its own way represents the authority of tradition, in the course of time people have often appealed to its texts or practices as arguments for a theological proposition. The Church Fathers Augustine, Athanasius, and Basil regularly turn to the liturgical reality in order to support or defend  Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions, 529.  Paul De Clerck, L’ intelligence de la liturgie (Paris: Cerf, 1995), 65 and 85. 45  Julia Knop, Ecclesia orans: Liturgie als Herausforderung für die Dogmatik (Freiburg i.Br., Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 2011), 23-25 46  The axiom is usually used in this shortened form, but in the complete version, as found in the words of its author, Prosper of Aquitaine (ca. 390-455), it reads: “… ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi,” “… so that the law of prayer determines the law of faith” (DH 246). See Knop, Ecclesia orans, 143 and Paul De Clerck, “Lex orandi, lex credendi: Un principe heuristique,” La Maison-Dieu 222 (2000): 61-78. For literature see: Knop, Ecclesia orans, 139, notes 1, 2, and 3. 47  Matthias Joseph Scheeben, Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik. 1. Buch: Theologische Erkenntnislehre (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 21948), 159f. 43

44



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

79

a certain belief.48 Strictly speaking, this is not a matter of proof on the basis of the liturgy, but of a testimony that supports a certain theological view. Knop phrases this as follows: “Liturgical action, as non-discursive, representing action, in a strict sense ‘proves’ nothing. … However, it bears witness, expresses, and articulates, it strengthens and activates the ecclesial profession involved with this faith in the mode of prayer and rite.”49 Liturgy, as celebration of faith, offers an argument for the benefit of theological reflection but does not itself argue. Congar in his reflection on the liturgy as a monument of tradition, stresses that our primary attention must be focused on the liturgy as an expression of the life of the Church, rather than on its function as an arsenal for argumentation.50 He does acknowledge the great educational value of the liturgy.51 Vagaggini offers four rules for determining the degree of certainty and authority that the liturgy can provide as regards faith content.52 He also posits, however, that the liturgy is much more than religious education. It is first of all a comprehensive expression of the life of the entire Church, in which its essence as body of Christ becomes manifest.53 In response to the use of the adage lex orandi, lex credendi by the doctrinal authority of the Church, Knop observes: On the part of liturgiology, the danger is very rightly mentioned of selectively instrumentalizing liturgical elements that came into existence in a system of very different institutions and epochs for specific Church-political interests. Liturgy is celebration of faith, not application of doctrine, it may therefore neither be narrowed in a dogmatictheological manner, nor in a legally positivistic-rubricistic manner.54 48  De Clerck, “Lex orandi,” 70f. For Augustine, see especially Knop, Ecclesia orans, 36-136. 49  Knop, Ecclesia orans, 152: “Das liturgische Handeln ‘beweist’ als nichtdiskursives, darstellendes Handeln im strengen Sinn nichts. … Sondern es bezeugt, bekundet und artikuliert, es stärkt und aktiviert das auf diesen Glauben bezogene kirchliche Bekenntnis im Modus des Gebets bzw. Ritus.” 50  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 183f.: “Il ne s’agit pas de la liturgie comme arsenal dialectique (!), mais de la sainte liturgie comme expression de l’Église en acte de vivre, en louange de Dieu et en réalisation d’une communion sainte avec lui …. Non pas seulement voix du magistère définissant, enseignant, reprenant, condamnant, réfutant, mais voix de l’Église aimante en priante, faisant mieux que d’exprimer sa foi: la chantant, la pratiquant dans une célébration vivante, où elle se donne tout entière.” 51  Ibid., 184; La tradition et la vie de l’Église, 103. 52  Vagaggini, Theological Dimensions, 520-529. 53  Ibid., 512f. 54  Knop, Ecclesia orans, 158: “Völlig zu recht wird … von liturgiewissenschaftlicher Seite die Gefahr benannt, liturgische Elemente, obgleich in einem Gefüge ganz unterschiedlicher Instanzen und Epochen gewachsen, selektiv für partikuläre kirchenpolitische Interessen zu instrumentalisieren. Sie ist Feier des Glaubens, nicht Anwendung von

80

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

Everyone emphasizes that the liturgy is not to be improperly hired out to dogmatic argumentation, but that the theological appeal to the liturgy only takes place in the proper way if it completely takes into account its own specific nature. The faith, and especially the salvific work of Christ, that is received and handed down in tradition is performed in the liturgy and is there a source for theological reflection. At the same time, a necessity can exist on the part of doctrine to adjust prayer texts. The liturgy influences doctrine, which in turn influences the content of the liturgy. There is, accordingly, a dialogical relationship between the two norms the adage mentions. History, … shows us that a healthy tension always existed between the two elements, but in such a way that the privileged priority of orans always creatively serves the credens which in turn often exerts pressure back onto the orans.55

2. Liturgy as a locus theologicus In the past, when discussing the question of the relationship between liturgy and tradition, tradition was usually understood as “transmitted content of faith.”56 In this sense, there are many kinds of sources or “places” where data can be found which may serve as a point of departure for theological reflection and the formulation of doctrine. In theology, the relation of liturgy to tradition is of old discussed in this way in theological epistemology, the study of how God’s revelation, transmitted in the history of the Church, can be known. The doctrine of the loci theologici, developed by Cano (1509-1560),57 distinguishes ten “places” where this revelation may be found in an authoritative way. These are: the authority of (1) sacred Scripture, (2) the tradition of Christ and the apostles, (3) the Catholic Church, (4) the Councils, (5) the Church of Rome, the Holy See, (6) the Fathers of the Church, (7) the Doctors of the Church and theologians, (8) natural reason, (9) the philosophers, and Lehre, darf daher weder dogmatisch-theologisch noch rechtspositivistisch-rubrizistisch verengt werden.” 55  Thomas R. Whelan, “On Liturgical Tradition,” in Serving Liturgical Renewal: Pastoral and Theological Questions. Essays in Honour of Patrick Jones, ed. Thomas R. Whelan and Liam M. Tracey (Dublin: Veritas 2015), 197-238, at 212. 56  Louis-Marie Chauvet, “La notion de tradition,” La Maison-Dieu 178 (1989): 7-46, at 11f., speaks of tradition traditionnée when referring to the content or the corpus, and tradition traditionnante when referring to the process. 57  Melchior Cano OP, De locis theologicis libri duodecim (Leuven: Birckmann, 1564).



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

81

(10) human history.58 Cano distinguishes the first seven as loci in the true sense. Of these seven, the first two, Scripture and apostolic tradition, contain the actual, revealed principles of theological argumentation, while the other five contain interpretations of them and conclusions drawn from them. The final three loci are called ascripticii or alieni; this is where references or support may be found for dogmatic propositions that are not derived from revelation. That the liturgy did not initially occur among the loci theologici can perhaps be explained by the fact that its authority is derived from loci such as sacred Scripture, oral apostolic tradition, the Church Fathers, and the doctrinal authority of the Church.59 In the current theological parlance, however, liturgy is often considered to be a locus theologicus.60 This, then, concerns liturgical texts and practices from which theology can derive arguments to support a certain doctrine or theological line of reasoning. In this context the term “proof from the liturgy” was used, a subcategory of the “proofs of tradition.” This term is now felt to be problematic, because it implies an approach to faith as if it were a theory to be proven, whereas it is first of all a personal event of encounter between God and the human person.61 Knop considers the liturgy as belonging to the third locus, the Church as the community of all the baptized believers. The liturgy as a celebration is a manifestation of the performance of faith of the ecclesia catho­lica in its various parts. The celebration of the liturgy is a competence and a mission that all the members of the Church have in common.62 The authority of the liturgy as locus theologicus and its significance are based on the fact that it is part of the tradition of the Church, so that “the church, in its teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to

58  Cano, De locis theologicis, L. I, c. 3, at 4 and 5, cited by Knop, Ecclesia orans, 190f. (who uses a different edition). 59  Cf. Knop, Ecclesia orans, 201: “… dass man den Gottesdienst in Relation zu den jeweils aufgeführten Medien und Instanzen der Überlieferung nicht als etwas substantiell Anderes und Eigenständiges verstanden hat. Konkrete liturgische Vollzüge … werden … einem theologischen Ort, nämlich der apostolischen Tradition, eingeordnet.” 60  C. Michon and G. Narcisse, “Lieux theologiques,” in Dictionnaire critique de théologie, ed. Jean-Yves Lacoste (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2013), 790-793 and 330f.; Aidan Kavanagh OSB, On Liturgical Theology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992 [1984]), 91f.; Alceste Catella, “Theology of the Liturgy,” in Fundamental Liturgy, ed. Anscar J. Chupungco, Handbook for Liturgical Studies 2 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 3-28, at 23. 61  Knop, Ecclesia orans, 33, note 5. 62  Ibid., 203.

82

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

every generation all that it is and all that it believes.”63 The liturgy is the realization and fulfillment of the life of the Church in which God and human being, Christ and the Church, encounter one another.64 3. Liturgy as a Condition for Theology In this study, our objective is not to derive theological arguments from the liturgy. In a certain sense our aim is the reverse: theological reflection for the benefit of the liturgy, or more precisely: deriving insights and criteria from theology (specifically the theology of tradition) for the benefit of an outlook on liturgical reform. However, precisely with an eye to liturgical reform it is of importance that theology lets itself be formed by and finds an importance source in the liturgy. Theology, or the doctrine of faith, is not an external authority that applies criteria found elsewhere to the liturgy, but lets itself be nourished by the liturgy, in order to be able to understand that same liturgy better. The theology of tradition indeed does not primarily concern tradition as depositum fidei, as a collection of data of faith, but tradition as a process of transfer, as an active celebration and transmission of the Gospel. Within tradition understood in this sense, liturgy functions as a monument of tradition, with the nine characteristics mentioned in section III.1. There, the emphasis is on the liturgy as a unique, ritual reality which makes the mystery of Christ present in its very own way, not in the manner of arguments to be wielded, but in the manner of an encounter. From the beginning of the life of the Church, the liturgy offers the opportunity of an encounter between Christ and his people, or a dialogical relationship. This is a living reality which ought to be a primary source for theology. For a tradition-theological reflection on liturgical reform, such as we intend in the following chapters, it is consequently of great importance to consider the liturgy itself as an indispensable source. We therefore have to gain more insight into the way in which the liturgy is a source and norm for theological reflection. Since the 1960s, the theological movement of liturgical theology, of which Schmemann was the initiator, has flourished in the United States. We will first of all study his view in which he describes the liturgy, and especially the Eucharist, in the 63  Dei Verbum 8: “…, sicque Ecclesia, in sua doctrina, vita et cultu, perpetuat cunctisque generationibus transmittit omne quod ipsa est, omne quod credit”; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *974. 64  Knop, Ecclesia orans, 211.



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

83

Church as the “moment of truth” in which the “objects” of theology, God, human being, and world, come to light. “(The liturgy) reveals both the objects of theology as they really are and gives the necessary light for their understanding.”65 According to Schmemann, theology is a Christian service and a gift of the Spirit that is given in the Church, in the place where it is eminently itself: in the liturgy. In the liturgy, after all, the Church is with Christ: “… she offers in Christ, and offers Him, and is accepted by Christ and receives from Him.”66 The Eucharist, then, is the moment and the place of truth, because there we stand before God in Christ and in Him understand and summarize the truth about God, humanity, and the world; it is the task of theology to witness this truth.67 In the Eucharist, therefore, the main characteristics become manifest of the faith that theology takes as its starting point. What applies to the Eucharist also applies to the whole of the Christian liturgy. Schmemann accordingly does not view the liturgical tradition as an “authority” or as a locus theologicus, but as the ontological condition of theology, “because it is in the Church, of which the leitourgia is the expression and the life, that the sources of theology are functioning as precisely ‘sources’.”68 In other words, for Schmemann the liturgy is not an exchangeable authority for theology, but a condition, a prerequisite of it.69 In the liturgy, the Church is itself as an eschatological reality and that is where the theological work begins.70 Schmemann also sheds light on the way in which liturgy is condition and source of theology. His concern is not individual liturgical texts or customs, but the whole: It is a whole, within which everything, the words of prayer, lections, chanting, ceremonies, the relationships of all these in a “sequence” of “order” and, finally, what can be defined as the “liturgical coefficient” of each of these elements (i.e. that significance which, apart from its immediate content, each acquires as a result of its place in the general sequence or order of worship), only all this together defines the ­meaning of the whole and is therefore the proper subject of study and theological evaluation.71 65  Alexander Schmemann, “Theology and Eucharist,” in Liturgy and Tradition, 69-88, at 87. 66  Ibid. 67  Ibid. 68  Schmemann, “Theology and Liturgical Tradition,” 18. 69  What Schmemann means exactly with the term “ontological condition” demands further philosophical reflection. Joris Geldhof, “Liturgy as Theological Norm: Getting Acquainted with ‘Liturgical Theology’,” Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 52 (2010): 155-176, at 175, advocates a metaphysical approach. 70  Schmemann, “Theology and Liturgical Tradition,” 17. 71  Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 19.

84

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

The whole of the liturgical acts, their interrelation in the ordo of the celebration in question, and the place of each of those parts determine their theological significance. It is in this way, then, that the liturgy is the subject of theological reflection. Schmemann advocates the discipline of liturgical theology as a border area between the reality of the liturgy and the unfolding of doctrine. “For without an appropriate theological systematization and interpretation, the liturgical tradition does not ‘arrive’ at dogmatic consciousness.”72 We now turn to On Liturgical Theology by A. Kavanagh, which also discusses this matter in a convincing way. Like Schmemann73 and in line with him, Kavanagh also posits that liturgy is not a separate activity of the Church, but the Church itself, in the act in which it is most manifestly itself, namely faithfully standing in the presence of God, who is object and source of that faith.74 Knop phrases Kavanagh’s view on the relationship between liturgy and Church as follows: In this paradigm, Church and liturgy cannot be considered as two separable entities. The essence of the Church discloses itself in and out of a hermeneutic of worship. Liturgy in turn only becomes comprehensible if one involves the celebrating entity: the Church.75

Kavanagh further elaborates this ecclesial framework of the liturgy. In the liturgy, the Church stands in the presence of God. This standing before God that the faith community does, is a staggering experience that is made possible by God’s grace.76 Something happens to the community in the liturgical act, it is moved and it changes. Kavanagh sees this change, brought about by the liturgical experience of God’s presence, as part of a dialectical process in tradition. In this dialectic, the thesis is the celebrating community. The antithesis is the changed state of the community after the liturgical encounter with God in Word and sacrament. The synthesis is the adaptation, in faith and works, of the community to this encounter.77 In Kavanagh’s view, there is accordingly a dynamic process taking place in the liturgy, in which the faithful are  Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 19.  Schmemann, “Theology and Liturgical Tradition,” 17. 74  Kavanagh, On Liturgical Theology, 75; cf. 90. 75  Knop, Ecclesia orans, 228: “Kirche und Liturgie können in diesem Paradigma nicht als zwei voneinander separierbare Grösse betrachten werden. Das Wesen der Kirche erschliesse sich in und aus einer Hermeneutik des Gottesdienstes. Liturgie wiederum werde verständlich nur unter Einbezug der sie feiernden Grösse: der Kirche.” 76  Kavanagh, On Liturgical Theology, 75. 77  Ibid., 76. 72 73



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

85

moved and changed by the experience of the sacred, and subsequently adapt their faith and their life praxis to that experience. Faith and loving dedication, then, are a reaction to this revelatory experience. Kavanagh compares this experience and the reaction to it to Moses, who receives a revelation from God in the burning bush and on the basis of that has faith and knows he has been sent.78 According to Kavanagh, this liturgical event and experience is a form of theology, theologia prima, primary theology. Theology in general aims to be critical reflection on the relationship between God and the human person. Precisely the point at which the encounter between God and human is experienced, celebrated, and contemplated in the liturgy must then be considered crucial for the entire enterprise of theology.79 The theologia secunda is the further critical thought on and conceptual exploration of this, possibly in an apologetic context, so characteristic for western theology. Theology does not base itself on eternal truths, but on God’s self-revelation in human and historical reality. In the course of history, orthodoxia, traditionally understood as “right, pure worship,” became less and less the ontological condition of theology, of a correct understanding of the proclaimed Word of God, and more and more a place where theological arguments might be found for determining the proper doctrine, according to Kavanagh.80 Liturgy is an event of the first order that influences a community and that lends itself for further reflection. As such, the liturgy, according to Kavanagh, can be compared to language, which is also closely connected with communication within a community. Like liturgy, language does not answer to a doctrine or a theory, but is instead a source for these.81 The liturgical theology of Schmemann and Kavanagh advocates the liturgy as a living source and condition of faith and theology, and for this reason fits in well with our research into liturgy as a form of tradition. They distinguish themselves from other authors quoted in this section, mainly by the pertinence with which they view liturgy not as a possible source of data, but as a part of and necessary condition of theology. “A liturgical theology reflects and argues proceeding entirely from  Kavanagh, On Liturgical Theology, 92.  Ibid., 78. 80  Ibid., 82: “Right worship was ceasing to be the ontological condition of theology, of the proper understanding of the proclaimed word of God, becoming instead a locus theologicus in service to correct belief and teaching by church officials and secondary theologians, who were using the liturgy as a quarry…” 81  Ibid., 86. 78

79

86

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

the liturgy … [and] offers … an original contribution within theology and radicalizes the conclusion that the liturgy is a source of faith.”82 5.  Liturgy as Tradition’s Main Instrument What position does the liturgy hold as a source and bearer of tradition? Christian tradition begins with God’s initiative in the coming of Christ for the salvation of humanity and the world. The transmission of this reality of salvation in the Church takes place in many different ways. Among those means of transfer the liturgy, according to multiple authors, takes up a primary position and is considered the most important instrument of tradition. Congar describes the liturgy as an instrument of tradition of an unequalled quality and rank83; the privileged place, locus, of Tradition, not only in its preserving aspect, but also in its aspect of progress.84 According to him, the liturgy works in the way of tradition and exercises the function of tradition in an excellent way, because it has the genius, the spirit of tradition.85 Tradition loves, prays, meditates, and in this way penetrates ever more deeply into what it preserves and practices every day, says Congar, seemingly lending the whole of tradition a liturgical character.86 Of course, the other monuments of tradition are no part of liturgy, but what Congar probably means is that they do find their realization in the many acts of faith that, together, constitute the liturgy. In one of the most remarkable quotes, Congar speaks of the liturgy as the sacred Ark and the most intense focal

82  Albert Gerhards and Benedikt Kranemann, Einführung in die Liturgiewissenschaft (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 22008); English trans.: Albert Gerhards and Benedikt Kranemann, Introduction to the Study of Liturgy, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2017), 678. 83  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 184: “Cette nature de la liturgie lui assure une qualité et un rang hors de pair comme instrument de la tradition.” 84  Ibid., 186: “Aussi la liturgie est-elle le lieu privilégié de la Tradition, non seulement sous son aspect de conservation, mais sous son aspect de progrès.” Cf. Whelan, “On Liturgical Tradition,” 200f.: “… celebration as the privileged place wherein ‘Life’ and ‘Mystery’ meet and transact with salvific wholesomeness”; 201: “Liturgy is the privileged (but not the only) place where the Word of God is preserved in a living way.” 85  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 191: “La liturgie a le mode et elle exerce supérieurement la fonction de la Tradition, parce qu’elle en a le génie.” 86  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 103: “La Tradition, comme la liturgie, est l’acte d’un sujet qui aime, qui prie, qui médite et qui, faisant cela, entre progressivement dans un perception plus profonde de ce qu’elle tient et pratique chaque jour.”



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

87

point of holy tradition.87 Congar also refers to a number of other authors: J.-B. Bossuet, P. Guéranger, and L. Beauduin.88 The superlatives indicate the primary and most important place of the liturgy as a form of tradition, but also its function for the whole of tradition: in the liturgy the whole of tradition manifests itself most clearly. Initially, this point of view may be surprising. After all, when we look at the order of authoritative sources, liturgy is not at the top of the list. The authority of the liturgy is not first-rate, because it is derived from the authority of sacred Scripture, of the apostolic tradition, of the Church Fathers, and of the doctrinal authority of the Church. The liturgy, after all, came into being on the basis of ecclesial decisions and is comprised of texts and rituals stemming from these sources. It is not because of its authority with respect to content that the liturgy occupies this central place within tradition. On the basis of what argument, then, would this be plausible? If we take a closer look at the arguments, the issue rather seems to be that the liturgy truly brings the reality of salvation, which traditions hands on, to the people and brings about what it sings of. In the liturgy, salvation is not present as a theory but as a reality to be received and experienced. There, as in a focal point, what is said elsewhere is made real. The primary position of the liturgy is not in reference to a possible doctrinal function, as a source of data of faith, but to its mediating role in transmitting and receiving salvation in the death and resurrection of Christ. Precisely in the liturgy, tradition is not limited to informing but rather focuses on transforming. The human person is changed by the salvific function of the liturgy. This salvific, transformative effect of the liturgy demands a stronger foundation. The theological basis of the liturgy as a form of tradition that has to be explored here can be found in the ecclesial nature of the 87  Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 106: “…la liturgie est vraiment l’arche sainte et le foyer le plus intense de la sainte Tradition.” 88  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 187 and 191 (Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Instruction sur les états d’oraison: Livre VI, Œuvres 8 [Paris: Lefèvre, 1836], 59: “Le principal instrument de la tradition de l’Église est renfermé dans ses prières, et, soit qu’ on regarde l’action de la liturgie et le sacrifice, ou qu’on repasse sur les hymnes, sur les collectes, sur les secrètes, sur les postcommunions, …”); ibid., 191 (Prosper Guéranger, Institutions liturgiques [Paris and Bruxelles: Société Générale de Librairie Catholique, 2 1878], 3: “C’est dans la Liturgie que l’esprit qui inspira les Écritures sacrées parle encore; la Liturgie est la tradition même à son plus haut degré de puissance et de solennité”); ibid., 122 (Lambert Beauduin OSB, “La liturgie: Définition. Hiérarchie. Tradition,” Les Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales 28-29 [1947-48]: 123-148, at 136-137: “La tradition dans l’Église … sera sa vie pratique, sa façon d’agir, ses cadres, sa discipline, ses sacrements, sa prière, sa foi vécue à travers les siècles, …”).

88

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

liturgy. Tradition, and especially liturgical tradition, is essentially the tradition of the Church. Tradition has the Church as its subject.89 It is the Church, the community of people that hear the Word and celebrate the sacrament, that receives and passes on Christ in its tradition. It does this pre-eminently in the liturgy. Church and liturgy form a closely-knit unity. The Church as tradition, as receiving and transmitting community, manifests itself in the liturgy but also arises from the liturgy: this is where Church happens.90 This is seen also in the theory of Schmemann who speaks of the liturgy as the act of the Church itself, the Church in actu, the expression par excellence of its life. The liturgy is not a function of the Church, but just the opposite: the Church is born from the Eucharist. “It is not the Church that exists for, or ‘generates’ the liturgy, it is the Eucharist which, in a very real sense, ‘generates’ the Church, makes her to be what she is.”91 Tradition, one might say, is the receiving and transmitting action of the Church, and pre-eminently in its liturgical action. Church is present where this action takes place. “[Worship is] inseparable from the Church and without it there is no Church.”92 Incidentally, this does not mean that other forms of ecclesial action, such as the catechetical, diaconal, or pastoral, are overlooked by Schmemann. The term leitourgia much used by him, points to more than worship. It indicates a public service for the sake of the community, and is the public manifestation of the life of the Church, which is certainly rooted in ritual liturgy and expresses itself in it, but is not limited to it.93 Schmemann points out that in the Church Fathers, the Church does not have its own being or substance. The Church is omnipresent, however, because it is the gift of new life, creation and humanity redeemed and transformed in Christ.94 It is at the same time realization and anticipation of the redeemed reality of God’s kingdom. In the Orthodox  Congar elaborates this theme in La Tradition et les traditions, II, 76-109, where he also discusses the relationship between the Church as subject and the Holy Spirit as “sujet transcendant.” 90  Knop, Ecclesia orans, 284: “Liturgie ist theologisch relevant, weil sich hier Kirche volzieht, weil hier Kirche geschieht und weil sich in diesem Vollzug zeigt, was sie im Glauben ist.” 91  Schmemann, “Theology and Eucharist,” 79. 92  Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 29. 93  Schmemann, “Theology and Eucharist,” 79; idem, “Theology and Liturgical Tradition,” 17; idem, “Liturgical Theology, Theology of Liturgy, and Liturgical Reform,” in Liturgy and Tradition, 38-47, at 39. 94  Schmemann, “Theology and Eucharist,” 76. 89



CHAPTER III: LITURGY AS A FORM OF TRADITION

89

tradition this is expressed by the fact that every icon is in fact an icon of the Church, “because it manifests and reveals the new life of a being, the reality of its transfiguration, of its passage into the ‘new aeon’ of the Holy Spirit, this being precisely the manifestation of the Church.”95 The Church shares in the new aeon, but also allows one to share in it, this is what it is. Schmemann phrases this as follows: The new time, the time of the Kingdom of God and its fulfilment in the Church, now enters into the fallen time of “this world” in order that we, the Church, might be lifted up to heaven, and the Church transfigured into “that which she is” – the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit.96

He also mentions a “passing into the new aeon,”97 and the liturgy as a passage to the eschaton.98 “The Church … fulfils in the eucharist her ascension and entrance into the light and joy and triumph of the kingdom.”99 This view on the Church, as a passage to the Kingdom of God, is of a markedly eschatological nature. This is manifested by the liturgical action of the Church and this appears, in this context, as the most important action of the ecclesial tradition in which, according to Schmemann, the ascent to and participation in the Kingdom of God are realized. “Standing in the temple we stand in heaven,” Schmemann says, concisely connecting liturgy, ecclesiology, and eschatology.100 Liturgy and Church are here pictured mainly and one-sidedly as redeemed, heavenly realities. This raises the question how this relates to the unredeemed, human, and earthly dimension of liturgy, Church, and tradition. Liturgy as a form of tradition is, like the Church, a divinehuman reality in which time-bound, limited, human, and sinful elements are also, and quite powerfully, present. On the relationship between the two aspects, the following can be said. In and through this earthly dimension of the Church the Spirit of God is at work, which simultaneously makes the heavenly reality present and allows one to share in it. It is the Church which causes God’s work of salvation to be present in the liturgy and it does this within the earthly relationships and in a human, limited, and broken way. However, precisely for people in their brokenness, it thus offers movement towards and access to what  Schmemann, “Theology and Eucharist,” 76.  Schmemann, The Eucharist, 48. 97  Schmemann, “Theology and Eucharist,” 78. 98  Ibid., 82f. 99  Schmemann, The Eucharist, 43. 100  Ibid., 45; see also 47. 95

96

90

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

the gospel calls the Kingdom of God. This movement towards and access to the Kingdom is possible on the basis of the Church’s connection with or participation in God’s being through the Holy Spirit. Precisely this communion, communio, of the Church with God who desires the salvation of human beings, is the reason why the liturgy, manifestation of the Church, is the main instrument of tradition. The different Christian trends and monuments of tradition, then, attain an actuality, a realization, in the liturgy of the Church. In a sense, the other forms of tradition are in need of a liturgical actualization in the worldwide community of believers. Elements of various monuments of tradition such as Church Fathers, art, Doctors of the Church, music, testimonies of believers, can become part of the liturgy and come to life in the current event of a liturgical celebration. In the liturgy, they become tradition in the full sense of the word, transfer, God’s word received and appropriated by people. The liturgy may in this sense be the fulfillment and crown of tradition, but in its earthly and human dimension it is completely dependent on that same tradition. Its aim is none other than to make present the gospel of Jesus. Its “giving” is exclusively a “handing down”: in Jesus, the God who is focused on people lets himself be handed down in Word and sacrament, from generation to generation

Chapter IV

Liturgical Stagnation: Factors and Views Introduction These next chapters examine the idea of liturgical reform in light of the understanding of liturgy as a form of tradition developed above. The proposition to be examined is that liturgical reforms become necessary when the liturgy does not function properly as a process of tradition. The aim here, therefore, is to apply the concept of tradition, and especially the three structural elements of this concept, to the questions regarding the why and how of liturgical reforms. These latter questions become more concrete if we first determine on what points the liturgy requires reforms. These points, the so-called stagnation factors, will be discussed in this chapter. Next, chapter V studies the role of these stagnation factors in the liturgical process of tradition, after which, chapter VI will look for evaluation criteria for liturgical reforms on the basis of the liturgy’s character as a form of tradition. Liturgy, as a process of divine-human communication, obviously takes place in earthly reality. Liturgy is the celebration of the faith with body and soul, with intellect and emotion, as woman and man, old and young, poor and rich. Liturgy is celebrated by the faith community in its various parts, formed by and connected with the cultures in which people live. The human person not only receives divine salvation, but also experiences and understands it, in different aspects of his or her humanity, through complete participation in the liturgical celebration. There may, however, be various factors that prevent the active participation in the liturgy, understood in this way, from taking place. Liturgical reform aims to provide an answer to the situation in which this more completely conscious and experiential participation in the liturgy is hindered. Liturgical reform is a topic that cannot be studied without reference to any historical context, but nonetheless the primary concern here is the theme of liturgical reform in general. We are, after all, dealing with concrete reforms of a concrete liturgy celebrated in ­history. The generic term “liturgical reform” has to be studied in the

92

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

specific circumstances of a certain liturgical tradition. As this study is limited to the Roman Catholic perspective, we will take as our starting point for this and also the following chapters the recent reforms under the authority of the Second Vatican Council. 1.  Stagnation in Liturgical Celebration Liturgical communication is a delicate operation. In takes place again and again in the course of time and makes use of various human means. In the process, many distortions or hindrances may appear. One could also speak of stagnation or a short circuit in the liturgical transmission. From here on we will use the term “stagnation,” which stands for “stoppage” or “obstruction.” The choice of this term underscores that liturgy is a living process of tradition which, as it were, has to flow. This flow can be hindered, blocked, or even brought to a standstill by manifold factors. In the course of time, the liturgy of the Church then becomes less accessible for many believers. The cause of this may lie in themselves because they are insufficiently prepared and informed, or in the transmitted liturgical forms. These no longer “work,” so that the liturgy is no longer able to establish contact with the mystery of God and instead blocks the view of Him. A third cause of stagnation may lie in the celebrants, who preside in such a deficient way and so distort the Word in their preaching that God’s salvation becomes unrecognizable for the faithful. Both in the believers and in the transmitted liturgy, and in those who proffer God’s salvation in Word and sign, then, there may be obstacles present within the liturgical communication process. Both the liturgy as monument that has been handed down, and the people who celebrate their faith by means of it, can be the cause of stagnation in the liturgical process. Reform of the liturgy is necessary if it brings about the intended communication to an insufficient degree. The liturgy, then, is a diachronic communication process, that ideally functions in a certain way. Liturgy is the most important form of Christian tradition and this presupposes communication, an exchange of realities, thoughts, and feelings. It is a very special form of communication, namely that between God through Christ in the Holy Spirit, and the people of every new generation, gathered in the Church. Both communicative movements, from God to human and from human to God, take place in the liturgy and presuppose the conscious participation of the human person, with both head and heart. A person’s participation



CHAPTER IV: LITURGICAL STAGNATION

93

in the liturgical communication process is not a superfluous “extra,” which can also be dispensed with, but a necessary condition for the success of the liturgical event. Sacrosanctum Concilium 11 posits that it is necessary to the gracious activity of the liturgy that the faithful approach the liturgy with the proper disposition in order to cooperate with divine grace, lest they receive it in vain. To this end, the faithful are to participate consciously, actively, and fruitfully.1 The communication may be broken off on either side. The degree to which this communication process of the liturgical tradition has stagnated, determines the degree to which liturgical reform is necessary. The gauge, therefore, is the realization of divine-human communication through the liturgical signs. Due to various causes, a chasm has come about in the liturgical process of tradition between the celebrants and the faithful, the two parties in the ritual of this divine-human communication. Our research into the meaning of the concept of tradition for liturgical reform now first of all demands a further specification of this chasm. What causes this communication breakdown between the celebrants and the receivers of tradition and the stagnation of the process of tradition? 2.  Factors Responsible for Liturgical Stagnation We now turn to the constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. This Council document may indeed be considered the constitution2 or foundational law of the liturgical reform as it was initiated by the Council. It gives both the general principles for the liturgical reform and the specific directives for adaptation of various parts. Sacrosanctum Conci­ lium hardly mentions, if at all, the abovementioned chasm or a possible dysfunction of the liturgy. The regular repetition of the term participatio actuosa and its derivatives, however, clearly suggests that the Council fathers saw this as the central task of the liturgical reform and therefore also as the central problem. The participation of the faithful, both in its outward aspects and likely as pertains to inner involvement, had in their  Sacrosanctum Concilium 11: “Ut haec tamen plena efficacitas habeatur, necessarium est ut fideles cum recti animi dispositionibus ad sacram Liturgiam accedant, mentem suam voci accomodent, et supernae gratiae cooperentur, ne eam in vacuum recipiant. Ideo sacris pastoribus advigilandum est ut in actione liturgica … fideles scienter, actuose et fructuose eandem participent.” 2  The English term “constitution” indeed has as its primary meaning the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group. 1

94

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

view greatly decreased over time. Most of the liturgical changes the Council decided upon have to do with strengthening this full, conscious, and active participation of the faithful in liturgical celebrations. The church very much wants all believers to be led to take a full, conscious and active part in liturgical celebration. This is demanded by the nature of the liturgy itself; and, by virtue of their baptism, it is the right and the duty of the Christian according to the Council.3

The alienation between the liturgy and the faithful and the stagnation of the liturgical event cannot, however, be reduced to this one term. On the one hand there are more factors and on the other hand various aspects of the central problem may be identified. What stagnating factors did the Council aim to remedy?4 It can be assumed that the main problems were recognized by the Council. In this constitution, however, the Council did not wish to speak in terms of problems and solutions, but with a positive approach, starting from certain ideals. The document acknowledges that there are changeable parts in the liturgy, where here and there something has crept in that does not fit in so well with the inner nature of the liturgy or has become less suitable.5 Once, the document also makes mention of “elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage,” and “elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history,” i.e. additions and omissions in the course of the history of the liturgy.6 Furthermore, at one point the concern is mentioned that the faithful, “when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators.”7 Otherwise, the problems are not indicated. The document describes the theological significance of the liturgy and emphatically invites the faithful to participate in it consciously and actively. However, precisely the reforms that are proposed and the way they are to be ­implemented reveal what the constitution considers to be 3  Sacrosanctum Concilium 14: “Valde cupit Mater Ecclesia ut fideles universi ad plenam illam, consciam atque actuosam liturgicarum celebrationum participationem ducantur, quae ab ipsius Liturgiae natura postulatur et ad quam populus christianus … vi Baptismatis ius habet et officium”; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *824. 4  Johan B. te Velde OSB, “What Problems Did the Liturgical Reform Intend to Remedy?,” Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 98 (2017): 81-101. 5  Sacrosanctum Concilium 21: “… si in eas forte irrepserint quae minus bene ipsius Liturgiae intimae naturae respondeant, vel minus aptae factae sint.” 6  Sacrosanctum Concilium 50: “… quae temporum decursu duplicata fuerunt vel minus utiliter addita; … quae temporum iniuria deciderunt, …” 7  Sacrosanctum Concilium 48: “… ne christifideles huic fidei mysterio tamquam extranei vel muti spectatores intersint, …”



CHAPTER IV: LITURGICAL STAGNATION

95

the greatest problems in the liturgy. The Council’s intention was the renewal and promotion, instauranda et fovenda,8 of the liturgy. What problems was it trying to respond to? In order to answer this question, a close reading of the text of the constitution is needed. It is reasonable to assume the proposed reforms are intended to be a response to various forms of decrease in quality in the liturgy, causing the liturgical communication process to be hampered. A careful reading distills from the text a number of such liturgical abuses. The footnote to each subtitle indicates the paragraphs of the constitution studied in that section, alongside which is used J.A. Jungmann’s commentary on the constitution, in order to see how this text was interpreted in the time immediately following the Council.9 This approach limits itself to the stagnation factors that were acknowledged by the Second Vatican Council as point of departure for liturgical reform.10 It should be mentioned here that stagnating factors were not the only reason for the liturgical reforms. The liturgical case studies in Part Two will sometimes come across reforms that cannot be traced back to a certain stagnation factor. Usually, these are historical or theological corrections. The liturgical reform went beyond the problems indicated in the constitution. The following six factors in the stagnation of the liturgical process of tradition can be distinguished. 1. Decrease of the Role of Scripture and Preaching11 The constitution points out (24) that sacred Scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy and that the renewal, development, and adaptation of the liturgy must promote love for sacred Scripture. The resulting concrete policy intention is that the choice of readings from sacred Scripture should be more abundant, varied, and suitable (35,1-2). The repeated use of the comparative indicates that the  Sacrosanctum Concilium 1, 3 and 14.  Joseph A. Jungmann SJ, “Einleitung und Kommentar zur Konstitution über die heilige Liturgie,” in Das zweite Vatikanische Konzil: Konstitutionen, Dekrete und ­Erklärungen, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Teil 1, Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche (Freiburg i.Br., Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1966), 10-109; trans.: Joseph A. Jungmann SJ, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler, vol. 1 (New York: Herder & Herder, 1967), 1-99. 10  An historical or phenomenological study of such hindering, stagnating factors in the liturgy would probably find more than these six. 11  Sacrosanctum Concilium 24; 35,1-2; 51-52; 92. 8

9

96

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

Council fathers evidently felt that Scripture was used too sparsely up to then, but also with too little variation and not always suited to the celebration in question. The sermon is also considered an essential part of the liturgy and “should be carried out properly and very conscientiously” drawing its content mainly from Scripture and the liturgy. Specifically within the Eucharistic liturgy, the treasure of the Bible is to be opened up more fully (51), so that “a fuller and more nourishing selection of the scriptures gets read to the people within a fixed number of years.” This directive, too, is apparently a response to a judgement that too little of the wealth of Scripture was being passed on to the faithful in the liturgy. The homily, which expounds the mysteries of faith to the faithful ex textu sacro, “from the sacred text,” is promoted as part of the liturgy itself that may not be omitted on Sundays and feasts of obligation, a rule that suggests that such omissions did take place (52). Apparently, it was felt that the Church’s responsibility to preach was not being carried out sufficiently. In the liturgy of the hours as well (92), the reading of Scripture is so ordered that the thesauri verbi divini, “the richnesses of the divine word,” are made easily accessible and in more abundant measure. Apparently, the conclusion was reached that in the divine office as well, Scripture had too limited a place. If the important source that is Scripture, flows too sparsely, that is a cause of liturgical stagnation. The Council thus expressly chose to read larger parts of sacred Scripture in the liturgy and pay more attention to preaching and the interpretation of Scripture. In the course of the centuries, the proclamation of the Gospel in the liturgy became less recognizable and clear. Formally, sacred Scripture kept its important place in the Eucharist and the liturgy of the hours, but the representativeness and the quantity of the passages used and their comprehensibility for the faithful left much to be desired. The interpretation of Scripture and the homily as part of the liturgy were also not always given sufficient attention. The growing unfamiliarity of the present-day believer with the biblical way of thinking is a liturgical problem that the constitution refers to in its repeated pleas for liturgical and biblical formation and catechesis. Jungmann points out that the constitution not only argues for more Scripture reading, but also for the biblical character of prayers and hymns and the scriptural background of actions and signs. He draws the conclusion that liturgical and biblical renewal have to go hand in hand and makes reference to a practice of new liturgical hymns that were not sufficiently biblical in nature.12  Jungmann, “Einleitung und Kommentar,” 34.

12



CHAPTER IV: LITURGICAL STAGNATION

97

2. Decreased Awareness of Sacramentality and Symbolism13 The liturgy consists of symbolic acts and makes use of signa sensibilia, “perceptible signs” (7). The texts and rites are signs that point to a sacred reality. In the renewal of the liturgy, matters have to be ordered such that they perform this “signifying” more clearly, clarius exprimant (21). Here, too, the constitution uses the comparative, which suggests that in the past, the texts and rites were less clear in their signifying function. Concern is also expressed about the “visible signs which the liturgy uses to signify invisible divine things,” which ought to be characterized by noble simplicity, clarity, and brevity, avoiding useless repetitions (33, 34). This seems to be a reference to the complex and obscure rituals of the Eucharist, other sacraments, and sacramentals, with many repetitions or duplications. In the chapter on the Eucharist, the intention is once again stated that “Duplications which have come in over the course of time should be discontinued, as should the less useful accretions,” to realize a simplification, and to manifest more clearly both the intrinsic nature of the several parts and the connection between them (50). All this is in order to facilitate an active, devout participation on the part of the faithful. The broadening of the possibility of receiving holy communion under both kinds (55) is an example of a restoration of authentic signs that had disappeared in the course of time. Symbols are perceptible things that refer to a deeper, imperceptible reality and bring one into contact with it. They create a direct, nonrational communication with another reality, for example the past or the future. “The symbol brings together, unites and gives continuity to what is dispersed. … In symbols, our origins and the future towards we orient ourselves become interwoven with each other in the present.”14 A symbol introduces us into an order of which it is a part itself.15 It is within a culture of this sense of symbolism that the Christian experience of the liturgy and the sacraments developed. The meaning and the being of things were inextricably connected. The difference between the antique-primitive experience of symbols and our own is therefore that for the Ancients the symbol was much more charged with reality. In modern times, the two have drifted apart. Characteristic of the development since the Middle Ages is that “meaning” and “being” have been pulled apart. For this later  Sacrosanctum Concilium 7; 21; 33; 34; 50; 55.  Lukken, Rituals in Abundance, 19. 15  Chauvet, Symbole et sacrement, 120: “Le symbole … a pour fonction de nous introduire dans un ordre dont il fait lui-même partie.” 13

14

98

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

awareness, “meaning” has nothing to do with “being.” Meaning is something purely subjective that takes place in my head and does not change reality. This awareness of the reality of the symbol has been increasingly lost, especially in Western Christianity. The symbolic was no longer seen as “real,” as a manifestation of and possibility to make contact with another reality, but as “unreal,” as merely a symbol, as opposed to reality.16 The salvific effect of the sacraments was strongly emphasized in theology, but detached from their symbolic value. Some other symbols and symbolic acts were reduced to solemn ceremonies that mainly played a decorative part. The two developments both point towards a crisis in dealing with the Christian symbols. The Council speaks of adapting texts and rites, “so as to express more clearly the holy things which they represent, and so that thus the Christian people, insofar as this is possible, will be able to understand these things easily” (21). In general, the constitution wishes the symbolic acts to be simpler and clearer, so that they are more easily understood. The assumption appears to be that stagnation in symbolic communication is a matter of symbols that are too complex and unclear, with too many repetitions. The constitution clearly presumes that much of the liturgical language of signs was no longer understood by the faithful. Jungmann mentions additions that not only have to do with complicated and obscure symbolism, but also faulty symbolism that refers to monarchical court customs, proceeds from an urge for ostentation, or is an expression of forms of devotion that are no longer understood.17 What is desired is that the rites should have the luster of a noble simplicity. 3. Legalism and Rubricism18 In the history of the Western liturgy, an increasing emphasis can be discerned on the validity of administered sacraments and the minimum requirements for this. One also finds much interest in what is minimally necessary in order to meet the liturgical obligations. This is expressed, for 16  Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 21973), 139-141. Schmemann is speaking here of Orthodox Church life, but it seems that Western Christianity went through a similar development. 17  Jungmann, “Einleitung und Kommentar,” 39: “die dem höfischen Stil, dem Prunkbedürfnis oder auch der Frömmigkeitsweise früherer Zeiten entstammen, … und unnötige Verfeierlichung…” 18  Sacrosanctum Concilium 11.



CHAPTER IV: LITURGICAL STAGNATION

99

example, in questions such as what requirements the believer must minimally meet for a valid fulfillment of the obligation to attend Sunday Mass, or in what way a priest can minimally fulfill his legal obligation to pray the breviary. The practice of scrupulously following the rubrics, the ritual instructions in missal and ritual, is also an example of this. These developments can be denoted with the term “liturgical minimalism.”19 The success of a liturgical celebration is then measured by the correct performance of the rubrics. It is “minimal” in the sense that one focuses on, and sometimes limits oneself to, what is considered to be indispensable to the value of a celebration. Related to this is the trend in the Western liturgy to reduce the sacraments to their forma and materia, that which according to neo-scholastic doctrine is minimally required for a valid sacrament. This tendency has a magical quality, because it is highly focused on guarantees of the efficacity of the ritual, regardless of its symbolic and spiritual functioning. Such legalism is the reverse of the symbolic consciousness that we discussed as the second factor. Instead of viewing the liturgy as a complex of symbolic acts that make an encounter between God and the human person possible, an attempt is made to capture the indispensable core that is necessary for validity and efficacy. The tension between validity and fruitfulness, that is always present in the liturgy, has often been resolved in favor of the former and at the expense of the latter. From a complex of symbolic acts, the liturgy developed into a sequence of legal acts, which became a subsequent cause of liturgical stagnation. The Council only briefly touched on this subject in the constitution (11), in which the observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration is contrasted with the conscious, active, and fruitful participation of the faithful. In this context, Jungmann points out that it is the responsibility of the pastors to guide the faithful towards an aware and therefore fruitful participation in the celebration.20 The priority apparently no longer lies in concern for validity, but in attention for a comprehensible and fruitful celebration. 4. Decreased Sense of Community21 From the very beginning, liturgy has been a concern of the entire faith community. “It – and not the celebrating priest as such – is the holder of 19  Or “sacramental minimalism,” in James F. White, Roman Catholic Worship: Trent to Today (New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1995), 62. 20  Jungmann, “Einleitung und Kommentar,” 26. 21  Sacrosanctum Concilium 26-31; 36; 41-42; 54; 63; 101; 113.

100

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

the liturgy.”22 The people of God celebrates the new covenant as the Body of Christ. “Liturgical events are not private actions but celebrations of the church … the holy people drawn into an ordered whole under the bishops” (26) This is expressed liturgically by taking part in acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes, with at the proper times a reverent silence (30). The expression of a preference for communal celebrations over “a celebration of them by one person alone, as it were in private” (27) and the wish that “within the parish, a flourishing sense of community is pursued” (42) indicate that the Council was aware of the necessity of correcting liturgical privatization and a decreased sense of community. As stated, the Council document acknowledges that the faithful were often present “as though they were outsiders or silent onlookers.”23 Pope Paul VI even spoke of an attitude of passivity and apathy on the part of the faithful during the celebration of the liturgy.24 The history of the liturgy suggests that the faith community was silenced, was increasingly distanced from the liturgy, and was less and less able to experience it as its own act. The “we” in the prayers became increasingly nominal. For this reason, the Council argues for communal celebrations, in which the faithful are present in large numbers and participate actively, and in which everyone, minister and believer, performs their own part (27-28). “The communal conduct is now raised to a general principle. In that priest, readers, singers, servers and people act together and each contributes to the glorification of God in his way, the public worship of the Church truly comes into being.”25

22  Jungmann, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” 21; “Einleitung und Kommentar,” 36: “Sie und nicht die zelebrierende Priester für sich genommen ist Träger der Liturgie.” 23  Sacrosanctum Concilium 48. 24  “Mann soll nicht glauben, dass man nach einer gewissen Zeit zurückkehren wird zur früherer Frömmigkeit und Apathie. Nein, die neue Ordnung wird anders sein müssen und wird die Passivität der in der heiligen Messe anwesenden Gläubigen verhindern und aufrütteln müssen,” Pope Paul VI, audience address, l’Osservatore Romano, 18 March 1965, cited by Martin Stuflesser, “Vorwort: Eine Vortragsreihe zur Liturgiereform des II. Vatikanischen Konzils,” in Die Liturgiekonstitution des II. Vatikanischen Konzils: Eine Relecture nach 50 Jahren, ed. Martin Stuflesser, Theologie der Liturgie 7 (Regensburg: Pustet, 2014), 12; trans.: “No-one should believe that after a certain time we will return to the former piety and apathy. No, the new order will have to be different and will have to prevent and stir up the passivity of the faithful present at Holy Mass.” 25  Jungmann, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” 22; “Einleitung und Kommentar,” 36: “Nun wird das gemeinschaftliche Verhalten zum allgemeinen Grundsatz erhoben. Indem Priester, Leser, Sänger, Messdiener, Volk zusammenwirken und jener in seiner Weise zur Verherrlichung Gottes beitragt, entsteht wahrhaft die Gottesdienst der Kirche.”



CHAPTER IV: LITURGICAL STAGNATION

101

5. Clericalization26 The constitution often makes reference to the active participation of the faithful.27 The role of the people of God is a – and perhaps, the – central theme of this document. The doctrinal foundation of this in the idea of the priesthood of all believers, however, is only summarily mentioned in paragraph 14, which calls the Christian people “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people” (1 Pet 2:9) and where participation of the Christian people in the liturgy is described as a right and a duty by reason of their baptism. The liturgical exercise of this participation in Christ’s priesthood is described in paragraph 48. In various documents, the Council placed a strong emphasis on the universal priesthood of all believers.28 We may consider this a reaction to and a correction of a too dominant and one-sided role of the ordained priesthood. The liturgy of the Latin rite seemed to have become solely a priestly affair, that the lay faithful seemingly attended “as though they were outsiders or silent onlookers.”29 In response to this article, Jungmann writes: “Without using the word ‘common priesthood’, this was in fact what was stressed here with the greatest vigour.”30 Liturgical clericalism, which largely detached contact with the sacred from baptism and connected it with the sacrament of ordination, was an important cause of the stagnation of the liturgical process of tradition. The Christian faithful only seemed able to act through the priests in the liturgy and they were therefore unable to participate in it sufficiently actively. The role of the bearers of the threefold sacramental office as preachers and guardians and servants of God’s mysteries is not supposed to diminish the liturgical responsibilities of each Christian believer. An important part of their task is precisely the liturgical formation of the faithful, leading them in active liturgical participation both in word and by ­example (19). The reinstated communal intercessory prayer,  Sacrosanctum Concilium 14; 19; 30; 48; 53; 54; 114.  According to Jozef Lamberts, “Active Participation as the Gateway towards an Ecclesial Liturgy,” in Omnes Circumstantes: Contributions towards a History of the Role of the People in the Liturgy. Presented to Herman Wegman, ed. Charles Caspers and Marc Schneiders (Kampen: Kok, 1990), 234-261, at 234, the term occurs twenty-five times in the text. 28  The Council discusses the universal priesthood of all believers extensively in Lumen Gentium 10, 11 and 34. See also Apostolicam Actuositatem 2 and 3, and Presbyterorum Ordinis 2. 29  Sacrosanctum Concilium 48. 30  Jungmann, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” 34-35; “Einleitung und Kommentar,” 52: “Ohne dass das Wort vom allgemeinem Priestertum gebraucht würde, ist dies hier in die Sache mit höchstem Nachdruck betont.” 26 27

102

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

oratio communis or oratio fidelium, is an example of the restoration of active contribution on the part of the faithful (53), as well as the use of the vernacular, which offers a better possibility of responding and praying aloud (54). 6. Weakening of the Relationship between Liturgy and Culture31 Regarding the relationship between liturgy and the surrounding culture, there are two distinct aspects in the Council document. First, there is the fundamental issue of the use of the mother tongue of a country or people; and second, the place that other elements of a certain culture, such as hymns, artistic expressions, and ritual acts, may have in the liturgy. In Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council states that liturgy does not mean sameness. The Church does not wish to impose rigid uniformity (rigidam unius tenoris formam, 37). The text here seems to be referring to negative experiences from the past, in which the uniform Latin rite caused problems, especially in the missions. Now it is stated that there is room in the celebrations for the contributions of the different peoples and cultures; the substantial unity of the Latin rite must be preserved, however (38). Jungmann calls the question of language in worship “the most difficult point in the liturgical reform work of the Council.”32 Ample room is offered for the use of the vernacular in the sacraments and, for religious, in the liturgy of the hours. The texts are rather more reserved when it comes to the Eucharist and – for priests – in the liturgy of the hours and maintain the principle of the central place of the Latin language. In reality, Latin has been relegated to the margins and the entire Latin rite liturgy is celebrated mainly in the vernacular all over the world. As the main motive for this, Sacrosanctum Concilium mentions the great advantage to the people (… linguae vernaculae usurpatio valde utilis apud populum …33), without further exploring or clarifying this argument (36,2). It was apparently considered to be self-evident that the communicative possibilities of the liturgy, and the active participation of the people in it, would in this way be increased. For centuries, the Latin language had made it difficult for the faithful people to understand the  Sacrosanctum Concilium 36; 37-40; 54; 63; 101; 119; 123.  Jungmann, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” 25; “Einleitung und Kommentar,” 41: “der schwierigste Punkt in der liturgischen Reformarbeit des Konzils.” 33  Sacrosanctum Concilium 36,2; cf. 63, a quote from Pius XII, Mediator Dei 59. 31

32



CHAPTER IV: LITURGICAL STAGNATION

103

texts of not only the Scripture readings but also the hymns and prayers, so that insufficient justice was done to their catechetical and spiritual meaning. The circumspection in the text on the vernacular in the liturgy and the attention paid to matters of competence, especially regarding the jurisdiction of the Bishops’ Conference, however, make clear that bringing Latin as the liturgical language up for discussion was a sensitive issue. The Council does not specify its value, but things that come to mind are the unity, the dogmatic clarity, and the character of mystery of what was experienced as a sacred language.34 The question that had already been asked for several centuries, especially with regard to the non-Western cultures, on the relationship with the local culture, to have more possibilities of including native liturgical practices, is answered in the affirmative by the Council. The term “inculturation” is used to describe this phenomenon, “an interior transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration into Christianity and the rooting of Christianity in various human cultures.” 35 Christianity and culture are interdependent and each has something to offer the other. Elements of a culture can be included in the liturgy as an enrichment of the universal Church and for the benefit of a more fitting form of worship for the people concerned.36 The constitution specifically mentions liturgical music and the role of art (119; 122f.). The term “inculturation,” by the way, is rightly called into question. From the very start, liturgy is a part of multiple cultures, both historical and contemporary. At the same time it transcends them in its basic structures, but it is manifested in reciprocity with the culture. That liturgy was celebrated for centuries in the midst of very different cultures, in a foreign language and with a reduced reciprocity, without making use of values or customs of those cultures, was one of the stagnation factors indicated by the Council. 7. Final Remarks It has become clear that the constitution on the liturgy offers many more or less implicit clues regarding the question where the liturgy gives evidence of shortcomings. Six factors that are held to be responsible for the  The first two arguments in Jungmann, “Einleitung und Kommentar,” 42.  Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, 1985, cited in Anscar J. Chupungco OSB, “Liturgy and Inculturation,” in Fundamental Liturgy, ed. Chupungco, 337-375, at 338. 36  Ibid., 338-340. 34 35

104

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

stagnation. Of these six, the first two, the decreased role of Scripture and preaching and decreased awareness of sacramentality and symbolism, together with the fourth, a decreased sense of community, and the sixth, the weakening of the relationship with the surrounding culture, point to an undermining of elements that are essential and indispensable to the Christian liturgy. The third, legalism, and the fifth, clericalization, are the reverse of the second and the fourth factor. They involve a too dominant role of the two other, likewise essential and indispensable elements, namely the canonical ordering of the liturgy and the place and function of the ordained ministers as celebrants in the liturgy. For the Second Vatican Council, the weakening of the influence of Scripture, sacramentality, community, and the relationship with the surrounding culture, and the dominance of the juridical approach and the role of the clergy, had an adverse effect on the whole of the process of transmission of the liturgy. Both the liturgical reform as it came about and the liturgical formation and initiation necessary for this, are, according to the liturgical movement and the Council, focused on these six factors, in order to reduce their negative influence and strengthen their positive side. 3.  Views on Liturgical Stagnation How are these stagnation factors judged and what remedies are proposed? Views on liturgical reform are, after all, based on an assessment of the seriousness of the various forms of stagnation. On the nature and the severity of this liturgical stagnation, the nature and advisability of the reforms initiated by the Council, and the way in which these were implemented, there is by no means a consensus. In 1995, M.F. Mannion distinguished five views on the liturgical reform, five trends or directions in the debate, with different agendas regarding the current liturgical reform, which are not mutually exclusive but do each have a clearly distinguished focus.37 These various reactions to the liturgical reform, which each also have their own variations, offer a fairly complete picture of the diverse movements in the land of liturgiology. The abovementioned factors, which according to the Council are responsible for the liturgical stagnation, will consequently be judged differently on the basis

 Mannion, “The Catholicity of the Liturgy.” Mannion presented his classification at a conference in Oxford in 1996, see Baldovin, Reforming the Liturgy, 4. 37



CHAPTER IV: LITURGICAL STAGNATION

105

of these different agendas. In describing Mannion’s five variants here,38 in each case an attempt is made to answer the question of how the liturgical stagnation and the necessity of reforms is assessed in each case. The trends mentioned are all characterized by a certain affinity with one of the hindering factors. In each case, a relevant challenge will also be put forward. (1) The first trend is the movement that wants to restore the precon­ ciliar liturgy and sees a means of achieving this in the promotion of the “extraordinary form of the liturgy according to the Latin rite.” Here, the conciliar assessment of the liturgical crisis and the reforms implemented are not shared, and both the reformed liturgy and the way in which it functions in practice are rejected. The representatives of this trend assume that the outward form of the liturgy is not in need of any great change. It does acknowledge that the liturgy has been adapted and reformed in the past, even in the twentieth century by Pius X and Pius XII, but these are generally not considered to be corruptions of the liturgy. The tradition that developed and transmitted this form of liturgy is taken to be a normative process. This may be connected with the theological view on Church and tradition that these are primarily seen as a divine event, guided by the Spirit, in which the role of human actions is merely an instrument. The possible stagnation can be seen in the faithful being insufficiently informed and formed for participation in this form of liturgy. Within this trend therefore, liturgical reform does not in the first place have to do with changes in the outward ritual, but mainly with the aspect of the participants. What is at issue is their initiation in this form of liturgy and the improvement of their inward and outward participation in it. (2) The second agenda is described as recatholicizing the reform, in which the reforms in the liturgy are accepted, but there is the desire to strengthen and deepen the spirit, the spirituality of the liturgy. The term “recatholicize” refers to the spiritual depth, sacramental riches, religious abundance, and multicolored nature of ecclesial institutes.39 The ceremonial and aesthetic, but also the mystical aspects warrant special attention here. The objection voiced against the implementation of the decisions of the Council is that it was too strongly based on rational arguments and worked on the basis of an adaptation of the liturgy to the contemporary bourgeois, technical-scientific culture. This movement was named  We opt for an order that deviates from that of Mannion.  Mannion, “The Catholicity of the Liturgy,” 24.

38

39

106

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

after its aim: “recatholicizing the reform.” This means promoting what is seen as specific to the Catholic identity, i.e., the aesthetic and spiritual value of the liturgy as a symbolic event, and especially one’s inner experience of it. The relevant stagnation factor here is the third, that of legalism and rubricism. The first and the second, the decrease of the role of Scripture and preaching and of the awareness of sacramentality, are also connected with this. The specific challenge in this movement is to achieve a unity, a stronger connection between the inside and the outside, ritual and spirituality.40 Mannion here advocates more attention for a “liturgical pneumatology” and a renewal of the eschatological orientation of Catholic worship.41 (3) The third agenda is that of the promotion of the official reform, which is found mainly in the Roman “Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,” but also in Bishops’ Conferences and their liturgical services and advisors. It may be assumed that the analysis of the liturgical problems and the implemented reforms are accepted and upheld here. The idea that reforms are marked by an ongoing dynamic, that progressive renewals are always needed, especially as regards the sixth factor, that of inculturation, will hardly be shared, if at all.42 In this movement, the issue is the subject of the reform and the risk that this is arranged and imposed too much from above, by the Church leaders. Celebrating and handing down the liturgy concerns the entire community. The stagnation factor here is the fifth, that of clericalization, but also the fourth, a decreased sense of community. These two, after all, belong together like the two sides of a coin. The challenge here is for liturgical reform, taking into account the legitimate rights of the ecclesial authority, to truly enjoy the support of the faith community, so that it can identify with elements such as language, signs, and music, and for the reformed liturgy to become proper to the whole people of God. (4) The fourth trend has as its agenda the inculturation of the reform, the ongoing adaptation of the Catholic liturgy to the various cultures in which it is celebrated. In this school of thought, the assumption is made 40  Mannion, “The Catholicity of the Liturgy,” 27f.: “… it regards the principal challenge of ongoing liturgical reform as spiritual rather than as structural … a spiritual broadening and deepening of the post-conciliar liturgical order set forth in the revised books. … a spiritual unfolding of the potentiality of the revised liturgical rites, rather than their expansion, … a recovery of the sacred and the numinous in liturgical expression which will act as a corrective to the sterility and rationalism of much modern liturgical experience.” 41  Ibid., 28f. 42  Grillo, Beyond Pius V, 59: “… a progressivism that wants to repeat the liturgical reform in every generation.”



CHAPTER IV: LITURGICAL STAGNATION

107

that the reforms are just a beginning, a first step on the path of further adaptation to contemporary people and cultures, and a case is made for expanding the abovementioned fourth factor. The stagnation factor that goes with this is the sixth, in which it became clear that a failing inculturation is a cause of hindrance of the liturgical process. The challenge here is to seek an inculturation that does not injure the whole of the liturgical process of tradition, but enters into an inward connection with it. What must be sought out is a way for the source and the tradition of the liturgy to go together with the culture in which it is celebrated. (5) Then there is the fifth school of thought, particularly with the name reform of the reform,43 which acknowledges that the liturgy was in need of reforms and that the liturgical movement pointed in the right direction. However, it believes that many renewals were too swift and too radical, and it objects to a number of reforms that were adopted and/ or the way in which they were interpreted and implemented. The stagnation of the liturgy which it acknowledges was, in this way of thinking, combatted in a disproportionate way, insufficiently taking into account the reserve, caution, and gradualness asked for in Sacrosanctum Conci­ lium 23. This tendency therefore criticizes the manner in which the liturgical reforms took place: too quickly, too planned out, on too large a scale. It also points out changes in the liturgy that were unnecessary and that detract from the sense of reverence in the liturgy and its quality of mystery. A connection with one of the abovementioned stagnation factors cannot be made, because the issue here is not what made the reform necessary but the way in which the reform was executed. Here, the challenges consist in looking for the conditions that a proper, successful liturgical reform must meet and restoring elements of the liturgy that are missed. All these trends, then, welcome forms of liturgical reform. They are greatly divergent in the degree to which they deem changes in the ritual to be necessary or desirable. The two extremes are the first and the 43  A. Häusling ascribes the first use of this expression to K. Gamber. See Angelus A. Häussling OSB, “Nachkonziliaire Paradigmenwechsel und das Schicksal der Liturgiereform,” Theologie der Gegenwart 32 (1989): 243-254, at 246, n. 6. Thereafter it was often used by Ratzinger. See Joseph Ratzinger, “Bilanz und Perspektiven” (2001), in idem, Theologie der Liturgie, 657-682, at 673-677. See also Kurt Koch, “Die Liturgie der Kirche als Fest lebendigen Glaubens,” in Liturgie als Mitte des christlichen Lebens, ed. George Augustin and Kurt Koch (Freiburg i.Br., Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 2012), 27-62, at 52, n. 56 and the literature mentioned there, and John F. Baldovin SJ, “Does the Reform of the Reform Have a Future?,” in Serving Liturgical Renewal, ed. Whelan and Tracey, 119-130.

108

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

fourth school of thought, which respectively allow hardly any and a great deal of room for adaptations of the ritual to changed circumstances. All the trends, except the first, appreciate the necessity of reforms and in general acknowledge the stagnation factors that we distilled from Sacro­ sanctum Concilium. In the second and the fifth, there are wishes regarding the reformed liturgy on the basis of objections to the way the reforms were implemented, on the one hand with too little attention for the ceremonial, aesthetic, and spiritual aspects, on the other hand too quickly, insufficiently organically, and too radically. The third school of thought emphasizes the responsibility of the ecclesial authorities for the liturgical reform, but runs the risk of viewing the reform too much as a top-down affair and paying too little attention to matters of reception, appropriation, and initiation. The fourth trend, with its idea of the necessity of far-reaching inculturation, rightly underscores the necessity of celebrating the liturgy in the language and signs of a certain culture, but conversely runs the risk of wanting to adapt the liturgy to the diversity of people and cultures to such a degree that nonnegotiable, unchangeable elements disappear, endangering the identity of the liturgy. We have now combined the stagnation factors from IV.2 with the trends in this chapter that Mannion offers us. These different approaches in our research keep evincing four themes: (1) the liturgy as a unity of ritual and spirituality; (2) the subject of the liturgy: the ecclesial dimension of its reform; (3) the relationship of the liturgy with the time period and culture in which it is celebrated; and (4) the way the liturgy develops and reforms are implemented. Each of these four themes take a central place in each of the last four current trends within liturgical science. The first trend, that of return to the preconciliar liturgy, does not see any important stagnation factors in the ritual. It does, however, acknowledge in it the difficulties that can arise in one’s experience of the liturgy, if the believer does not have an inner access to it. This is shown by the availability of translations and explanations of it. For this reason, we connect this tendency with the first theme, the relationship between spirituality and ritual. The first stagnation factor, the decreased role of Scripture, the second, the decreased awareness of sacramentality, and the third, legalism, also fit in with the first theme because all three affect the inner, spiritual experience of the liturgy. The next themes, the second and the third, view the liturgy in relation to the ecclesial community and the culture, respectively. They are marked by three of the stagnating factors in the liturgy, as follows. The fourth stagnation factor, decreased sense of community, and the fifth,



CHAPTER IV: LITURGICAL STAGNATION

109

clericalization, limit the dimension of the ecclesial community and therefore fit in with the second theme. The sixth stagnation factor has to do with the weakening of the relationship between liturgy and culture and therefore fits in with the third theme. The fourth theme relates to the choice and manner of implementing liturgical reforms in general and thus does not concern specific reforms with their underlying stagnation factors. A final remark about this classification. The division of the stagnation factors over the four themes has to be put into perspective. These four themes cannot be separated absolutely, and therefore neither can the stagnation factors be viewed as completely separate from one another. To give an example: the decreased role of Scripture in the liturgy is linked to the person’s spiritual experience, because he or she then receives less spiritual formation through the biblical texts. The individual believer, however, cannot be viewed apart from his or her relationship with Church and culture; there is a strong reciprocal influence, which in turn causes the stagnation factors to have a wider effect. The decreased role and comprehensibility of Scripture in the liturgy will consequently also have an effect on the ecclesial community and the culture in which it lives. Another qualification of this classification lies in the place the stagnation factors hold in the liturgical tradition process. Especially the decreased role of Scripture and preaching, as well as the decreased sense of sacramentality and symbolism, do not belong solely on the side of the faithful appropriation, but are also directly connected with God’s selfgift through Christ in the Spirit by means of Word and sacrament. In both liturgical realities, after all, there is both a divine speaking and giving, and a human hearing and receiving. 4.  Reforming the Books, Forming the Faithful When and how these problems in the liturgical transmission factually cropped up and what their phases of development were is a matter for the historians of the liturgy.44 The aim, above, was to gain insight into 44  On the separation of liturgy and popular piety in history, see for example: Herman A.J. Wegman, Riten en mythen: Liturgie in de geschiedenis van het christendom (Kampen: Kok, 1991), 171, 176, 238, and 314f. Also White, Roman Catholic Worship, on liturgical minimalism 61f., on inculturation 30f., and on decreased sense of community 37f.

110

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

the nature of this stagnation and to denote or define it more precisely. The liturgical movement came into being on the basis of a strong awareness of these various forms of stagnation in the liturgy. It was, according to A. Grillo, an answer to what he calls “the liturgical question.” This liturgical question has to do with a growing apart of the faithful and the liturgy of the Church, or “the division between people and clergy at public worship.”45 According to Beauduin, in the course of the centuries an estrangement (“unlearning”) grew between liturgy and its participants.46 The liturgy as a source of faith, as a place of encounter with God, no longer functioned, or only partially. Faith and piety received too little nourishment and strength from the liturgy, and were instead experienced outside of it, for instance in personal devotions and a popular religiosity that was developing outside of the liturgy. It has become fairly customary to describe the liturgical stagnation in these terms of a rift or an estrangement between the liturgy and the faithful. This can now be fleshed out further. The three themes that the last section ended with – and that we here denote briefly as inwardness, community, and inculturation –, may be interpreted as variants of this rift. The faithful felt estranged from the liturgy because their own inner experience of faith, their own faith community, and their own culture were not, or were too little, reflected in the liturgical celebration. In fact, the abovementioned estrangement, or rift, between faithful and liturgy summarizes three aspects: a personal-spiritual, an ecclesial-communal, and a cultural dimension. The liturgical movement set as its goal counteracting this stagnation. Initially, in the first phase of the movement,47 the aim was mainly seen in an improvement of the initiation of the faithful by and in the liturgy. The emphasis was on “praying with the liturgy,” so on the personal dimension. It was increasingly experienced as problematic that most of the faithful did not know the liturgy and were unfamiliar with it. They did receive the sacraments, but hardly took part in the liturgy because, as they believed, the faithful were too little informed about and formed  Rosmini, cited by Grillo, Beyond Pius V, 90.  Cited ibid., 61 without attribution. The quote is strongly reminiscent of the following passage from Lambert Beauduin OSB, “Normes pratiques pour les réformes liturgiques,” La Maison-Dieu 1 (1945): 9-22, at 9: “… les baptisés sont à l’église comme des étrangers dans un pays dont ils ne connaissent ni les coutumes ni la langue.” 47  According to Grillo, Beyond Pius V, 51. Grillo gives a different demarcation of the phases of the liturgical movement than the one employed above in the introduction of Chapter I. This does not have any consequences for his argument that we follow here. 45

46



CHAPTER IV: LITURGICAL STAGNATION

111

in the complex and extensive liturgical world. Spiritual experience and piety found their place outside of the liturgy. Beauduin argued for an integration of piety and liturgy, so that the former would not be weakened but rather strengthened.48 He proposed an extensive program of activities, all focused on getting the faithful more involved with the liturgy.49 In a second phase of the liturgical movement,50 attention was focused mainly on the obstacles within the liturgical rituals themselves, which caused them to have become less readily accessible. The language used, the symbols and acts, and the complexity of the rites in particular were increasingly seen as obstacles, so that a reform of the liturgy came to be viewed as a necessity. The idea was to adapt the rites in order to make them simpler, more transparent, and more concise, better adapted to the modern human person in his/her culture, with more attention for the communal aspect and with more explanation.51 There was now more emphasis on the ecclesial-communal and the cultural dimension. The Council provided for a large-scale renewal, instauratio, of the liturgy and the liturgical books52 and, preceding that, measures for the liturgical formation of both faithful and clergy.53 Accordingly, two programs were started, focused on both the reform of the liturgy and the liturgical initiation of the faithful. This double liturgical reform was meant to promote, fovere, the liturgy and bridge the gap between liturgy and faithful by emphasizing the conscious and active participation in worship that was considered to be better suited to taking part. After the renewed liturgy had been implemented everywhere, in the course of the 1980s, it became apparent that there had been more emphasis on reforming the liturgical books than on forming the faithful.54 This is why, according to Grillo, a new, third, phase begins then, which is again focused on initiation by and in the liturgy. Perhaps the thought  Lambert Beauduin OSB, Liturgy, the Life of the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 21929), 27. 49  Ibid., 58-60. 50  From 1947-1988, according to Grillo. 51  Sacrosanctum Concilium 34-36. 52  Sacrosanctum Concilium 21-40. 53  Sacrosanctum Concilium 14-19. 54  This judgement of recent liturgical history follows Grillo, Beyond Pius V, 52: “This phase had a double end. On the one hand it produced … a series of new rituals that ensured the celebrative base for a new era in the life of the church. By concentrating on this aspect of the solution to the liturgical question, however, the urgency of the challenge of initiating the people into the liturgy was reduced.” 48

112

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

was that the renewed liturgy would fix the problem of participation in the liturgy. That was not the case, however. After the liturgical reform, the decrease of liturgical participation continued at a high speed, especially in the Western countries. A new attention is needed for the experience of the “liturgy as source,” a search for means to make the source accessible so that many may drink from this wellspring. “… (A)and this suggests for the church a fundamental need for education, formation, and initiation into the act of worship.”55 The reform of the liturgy may be considered a necessary, but not sufficient precondition for experiencing the liturgy as a source.56 The disappointment that is experienced both on the left and on the right concerning the liturgical reforms is, according to Grillo, the consequence of overlooking the necessary and delicate balance between reform of and initiation in the liturgy.57 He believes that the scales tipped in the direction of the reforms and argues for a new emphasis on the patient work of liturgical initiation

 Grillo, Beyond Pius V, 53.  Ibid. 57  Ibid., 54. 55

56

Chapter V

The Liturgical Tradition Process and Its Stagnation 1.  Criticism of the Liturgical Reform: Lack of Sacrality The reform of the liturgy led to many positive reactions, but also, noted above, gave occasion to many critical notes. Among the abovementioned trends it is first of all the fourth, that of the inculturation of the reform, where objections are voiced. Here the renewed liturgy is experienced too much as a straitjacket, with too few possibilities to adapt to local circumstances and too much emphasis on the unity of the rite. In the opinion of this movement, liturgy ought primarily to be a reflection of the faith and the experiences of people and groups in the present, a so-called “inductive and adequate liturgy.”1 In the liturgy, they seek an expression of the sacred as it is experienced by people of present-day cultures, in the present place and time. In the second place, the first, second, and fifth trends also led to critical reactions to the renewed liturgy. The first objects to the entire project of reform and wants to continue on with the preconciliar liturgy, now called “the extraordinary form of the Latin rite.” The second especially misses the ceremonial-aesthetic and mystical dimensions and wants more attention to be paid to the manner of celebrating the reformed liturgy; the fifth is critical of the way the changes were introduced and also wants to undo a number of those changes.2 The third movement, the bearer of the liturgical reform, of course supports the implemented reforms, but will see as the main challenge the liturgical initiation of the faithful. A common feature of the latter three critical assessments of the liturgical reform, the first, second, and fifth

 Lukken, Rituals in Abundance, 333-358.  Extensive on the criticism from conservative quarters: John F. Baldovin SJ, “Idols and Icons: Reflections on the Current State of Liturgical Reform,” Jaarboek voor Liturgieonderzoek 27 (2011): 209-221, at 212-217 and Lukken, “The Field of Tension between Liturgical Restoration and Reform,” 262-269. 1

2

114

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

movements, is that “the sacred” is felt to be lacking, an expression which, to various degrees, refers to a classical, transmitted form of sacrality.3 Following Durkheim, the sociologist M.T. Evans describes “the sacred” as “things set apart.”4 Evans clearly distinguishes the sacred from the holy, the religious, or the transcendent. Particularly in the English language, the words “holy” and “sacred” are used interchangeably, while they denote different things.5 On the basis of, among other things, lexicographic research, he chooses to designate “sacred” as “that which is set apart.”6 This “setting apart” can be imagined as something that has a special, often emotional value, a “valuation beyond utility”7 for a person or community. It is also marked by a certain vulnerability and therefore requires protection. This protection, the “setting apart,” may amount to making the sacred object or space in question inaccessible by means of a partition, a prohibition to enter or to touch. However, it may also be “set apart” by a special placement, decoration, or an attentive treatment. In this context of liturgical language, sacrality is defined as a characteristic of various expressions of art and culture, both individual and collective, which refers to the reality of God or the holy.8 Particularly in the liturgy, the term “sacrality” thus refers to all those human means that point to God or make interaction with God possible. Sacred acts accordingly have the property that they refer to transcendent reality and help those present to focus their minds and hearts on God. They do this by stimulating the faithful to adopt an attitude of inner participation in the liturgical acts. These sacred forms or customs came into being in the course of history and came to be connected with a certain way of celebrating liturgy, with a certain rite. The two forms of criticism of the liturgical reforms mentioned are both expressions of disappointment about the lack of sacrality in the 3  On this, see David Torevell, Losing the Sacred: Ritual, Modernity and Liturgical Reform (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 159-169, where the criticism comes down to a lack of attention for the ritual and the sacred, and an emphasis on the cognitive and intellectual side of the liturgy, see 168. 4  Matthew T. Evans, “The Sacred: Differentiating, Clarifying and Extending Concepts,” Review of Religious Research 45 (2003): 32-47, at 33. 5  Ibid., 37f. 6  Ibid., 35f. 7  Ibid., 39. 8  See also Henri Bouillard, “La catégorie du sacré dans la science des religions,” in Le Sacré: Études et recherches. Actes du colloque organisé par le centre international d’études humanistes et par l’institut d’études philosophiques de Rome (Paris: Aubier Montaigne, 1974), 33-56, at 44-52, see especially 44: “Le ‘sacré’ est un élément du profane, reçu par l’homme comme médiation significative et expressive de sa relation au ‘divin’.”



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

115

current liturgy.9 The first one misses a present-day, endemic, inculturated and therefore plural form of sacrality, the other misses a form of sacrality developed in the past. The issue here, however, is not only a traditional versus a newer, intercultural form of liturgy. There are also differing views on sacrality in play. One view mainly looks for sacrality in the human expression of experiences of the sacred in the present: that is where Christ is present and is recognized, and where his Spirit is at work in the lives of present-day people. The other view finds that sacrality in close connection with the sacred origin of God’s self-gift as it has been handed down liturgically; that is, the liturgical tradition of the event of the incarnation and the paschal mystery of Christ. There are, then, two opposing approaches to liturgical reform: the first looks for greater adaptation to the plural present, the second looks for a stronger connection to the unique sources of the liturgy. The Council asked for reforms on the basis of both approaches. On the one hand, as noted above, it acknowledged the stagnation of the liturgical communication process in the present on the three points of personal understanding and experience, the communal dimension, and inculturation. On these points, a strong push was made to promote conscious and active participation. On the other hand, it also saw the problems there were regarding the accessibility of the central mystery of faith, the paschal mystery, and of its sources: especially the place of sacred Scripture in the liturgy and the symbolic nature of the liturgy, the first two stagnation factors. Much work was also done to make these two fundamental elements of the liturgy accessible. The disappointment that can be seen in both movements has multiple causes. First of all, there is a corresponding cause: the tension between historical origin and present-day actuality. The need for a larger place in the liturgy for contemporary forms of sacrality, based on current experiences of the sacred, is inevitably at odds with the necessity of connecting with the sources of the liturgy. Both Word and sacrament, celebrated in the present, are directly linked to the past, to their origin in Christ. That means that there are limits to bringing the liturgy up to date and inculturating it. The need for contemporary forms is restricted by the necessity of making a connection in the liturgy with the revelation of Christ in history. A similar tension can be noted in the reverse sense: making 9  Torevell, Losing the Sacred, 18: “Both parties appear united in their view that the reforms have resulted, and continue to result, in further fragmentation and a loss of the sense of the sacred.”

116

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

the paschal mystery that once was a historical reality in Jesus of Nazareth a liturgical reality, can only be done in the language and frame of reference of contemporary people. This means that connecting with the sources of the liturgical tradition has its limits as well. Liturgy can never be solely a representation of the past, but rather consists precisely in a commemorative celebration in the present of God’s great deeds. The tension between these two poles leads to these two kinds of liturgical frustration, one because the present plays too small a part, the other because the part of the past is too limited. Another cause of disappointment with the results of the liturgical reform lies in the role of the liturgical tradition. The sacrality of the liturgy, after all, is found not only in the current experience and the relationship with the Source, but also in a complex of texts, rituals, artistic expressions, and other customs, which has grown in the course of centuries of interaction with the sacred, denoted as “liturgy as a monument of tradition.” This monument of tradition, with its own sacrality, is very closely connected with the sacred, the paschal mystery of Christ. Throughout the centuries, there has been liturgical contact between the self-giving Christ and the human person desiring salvation, by means of these forms and customs, Scripture readings, prayers, hymns, sacraments, and other rites. The sacrality of the liturgical monument of tradition was, accordingly, a path to the sacred, a connection and mediation between God and the human person. It made the liturgical communication possible. At the same time, this sacrality of the liturgy also brought about a distance between the human person and the sacred. The liturgical forms created a hiddenness or veiling which could cause both distance and alienation, and mediation and connection. The drastic renewal of these traditional liturgical forms was intended to combat that alienation. For some, it did not go far enough in this regard; for others, it caused the connected to be impeded or even severed. The shortcomings of the liturgical reform, felt by many, can thus be traced back to, among other things, two types of causes. On the one hand there is the tension between origin and actuality, in which some desire a greater emphasis on the former, others on the latter. On the other hand, there is the role of the liturgical monument of tradition, that provides the liturgical forms for current celebrations. By order of the Council these were renewed, particularly clarified and simplified. Because of this, the experience of the sacred was affected for a subset of the f­aithful. Both types of causes are related to the concept of tradition that we have studied. It now becomes apparent that the limitations or ­shortcomings of the ­liturgical



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

117

reform have to do precisely with the functioning of the liturgy as tradition. The first category of causes mentioned above has to do with the tension between God’s self-gift in Word and sacrament, and the human appropriation of this in the liturgy. Is the emphasis placed on the origin of God’s revelation in the human Jesus, or on present-day experience? The second type of causes regards the role of the monument of tradition in the liturgy: is this monument of tradition useful or even indispensable in the forms as they were handed down, or were drastic changes necessary? 2.  The Two Poles of the Liturgical Tradition Process Analysis of the concept of tradition yielded three structural elements. Tradition is a process of giving and receiving throughout history. These two, however, can never be found separately; in each phase of tradition they are always interconnected. The Word-in-self-gift is pointless without reception and appropriation by the faithful. Appropriation is nonexistent without what is given and handed down in word and sign. The two are mediated by the third element: the monument of tradition. The Word of Christ does not work separately or in isolation, but through tradition as monument. The appropriation by people in the present also takes place by means of that same monument of the transmitted liturgy. The coming of the Word and the reception of it in appropriation go on continuously and together they keep forming new building blocks of the monument of tradition. What also came to the fore was that the cooperation of these three elements is a diachronous process of communication, focused on the understanding, appropriation, and response to the message of Christ, mediated by the liturgical tradition. Liturgy aims to make possible an ever new encounter between God and the human person, an event of Word and response that “happens” again and again in an ongoing development. As demonstrated above the process of tradition, in a way, “solidifies.” The living, dynamic reality of the liturgy becomes static if it starts to belong to the past. This is denoted consistently here as the “monument of tradition.” The three elements that at a certain time are a living process, pass. They become a monument and a part of the past. What was at first an active deed, has now become passive material. The liturgical monument of tradition also keeps expanding in the course of history. After all, each new phase of liturgical celebration in a certain present then becomes past and is added to it. Characteristic of this monument of tradition is that it belongs to the past. That can be a very recent past

118

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

or a past of almost two thousand years ago. The process of transmission, reception, and handing on takes place by means of the monument of tradition of the liturgy and is also crystallized in it. This is in essence the liturgy as it has been handed down and has grown throughout the centuries. Christ’s self-gift and the process of appropriation of the faith community as they have continually taken place in the past, have all been taken up in the complex of texts, rituals, and objects that function as mediation between the two in the present. The monument of liturgical tradition is an amalgamation of these three structural elements. Besides the mediating liturgical elements, the transmitted liturgy also always contains the substance of the Word in which God gives himself and the changing forms of appropriation of this by the faithful. The monument of tradition is comprised of liturgical celebrations that are over, that took place. Strictly speaking, this is liturgical tradition, not liturgy. It only becomes liturgy when current celebrations make use of customs and texts from the monument of tradition. Its function is that it can come to play a part again and again: the passive monument can be activated. This happens when a faith community in the present performs acts stemming from the monument of tradition. The aspects of this monument that are applied and the degree to which this is determinative for a liturgical celebration can vary greatly, but it is proper to every Christian liturgical celebration that it starts from the monument of tradition. In this way the monument of tradition, which in itself and considered separately is a static phenomenon, becomes a central factor in the dynamic process of liturgical tradition. The current liturgical act, then, activates the monument of tradition. This act is characterized by attention to events of the past, with an eye to the present of the celebration. The liturgical celebration in the present therefore always consists of two poles: first, a current liturgical act which, second, makes use of transmitted liturgical materials. In this study, the second pole is denoted with the term “monument of tradition,” already discussed; the first pole, the current liturgical act, will be designated as “remembrance,” a classic term in liturgiology. 3.  Liturgy as Remembrance The liturgy, in the sense of the present liturgical act, can be labelled as “remembrance” with three important characteristics. First of all, the liturgical remembrance is an act in the present. A community gathers in



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

119

the present for a liturgical ritual, with which it focuses on an element of the past for the benefit of the present. In doing so, it enters into a tradition, makes use of it, and carries it forward. The starting point for the process of tradition is, accordingly, always in the here and now. Without a celebrating community in the present, there is no liturgical tradition in the sense of a living process. Second, the celebrating community focuses heart and mind on persons, events, and messages from the past. The point here is to form a connection with that past. The liturgical community has what the German cultural philosopher J. Assmann calls a konnektive Struktur, a connective structure.10 It seeks contact with a bygone time that is important to it, that has meaning for the present and that it therefore does not want to forget. Third, the liturgical remembrance is an act of the Church. It is not an individual but an ecclesial event. Participants take part on the basis of their baptism, or the orientation on it, as a member of the Church or on the basis of their ordination and/or appointment in a pastoral role. Liturgy is an event that takes place in the present. In the present, there are people who gather and celebrate liturgy in the Christian sense with elements of prayer, song, Scripture reading, and ritual that were handed down to them by tradition. In doing so, they focus their attention on events of the past as recounted in sacred Scripture and the tradition based thereupon, the depositum fidei as it is contained in Scripture and handed down and faithfully received in the Christian tradition. In liturgical science the focusing of attention on God’s actions in history is called “remembrance,” memoria. The term is a translation of the New Testament ἀνάμνησις, used for Jesus’s command to remember him.11 The present-day believer and his or her community celebrate the liturgy now and remember, by means of the liturgical words and forms that  Jan Assmann, Das Kulturelle Gedächtnis (München: Beck, 1992, 62007), 16.  See especially Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24f.; cf. Gerhards and Kranemann, Einführung in die Liturgiewissenschaft, 142f.; Hans Bernhard Meyer, Eucharistie, Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, Gottesdienst der Kirche: Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft 4 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1989), 60, 71f. and 448f. For a concise summary of the salvation historical meaning of the term “remembrance,” see Walter Kasper, “Aspekte einer Theologie der Liturgie: Liturgie angesichts der Krise der Moderne – für eine neue liturgische Kultur,” in idem, Die Liturgie der Kirche, Walter Kasper Gesammelte Schriften 10 (Freiburg i.Br., Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 2010), 15-83, at 26-42: “Österliches Paschamysterium: Heilsgeschichtliche Begründung – Liturgie als fest der Erlösten.” For Casel’s contribution to the concepts of anamnesis and epiklesis, see Burkhard Neunheuser OSB, “Odo Casels Beitrag zur theologischen Fundierung der liturgischen Erneuerung,” in Liturgiereformen. Teil II: Liturgiereformen seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Klöckener and Kranemann, 649-664, at 653. 10 11

120

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

have been transmitted and are currently offered, the events of salvation in the past. The memory is kept alive with an eye to the questions and needs of the present, in the hope of future salvation. In biblical language, however, “remembrance” not only has bearing on the past but can also indicate a concerned thinking of someone or something. This may, for instance, be expressed in prayer.12 Remembering God’s deeds in the past is also closely connected with God’s remembrance of, his loving involvement with, humanity: “After reminding God, so to speak, about his saving work, we ask God to remember us, the human society, and the World at large.”13 Or, as H.B. Meyer puts it: “When God and his people remember one another, they make themselves present to each other and reciprocally let each share in the other.”14 In his book Das Kulturelle Gedächtnis, Assmann introduces the two terms communicative and cultural memory. Communicative memory refers to memories that are shared between individuals of a certain community, memories of a personal nature that go no further back than two or three generations. At issue here are the limits of what a person can remember of their own experiences or what a few generations can remember of what they were told in their youth. Their memory concerns events in regular “clock time.” Cultural memory is the collective memory of a community that spans many centuries and contains less verifiable events, and that takes place in a so-called “mythical time.” Communicative memory has to do with biographical data, cultural memory with the collective mythical history.15 Both forms of memory are symbolically expressed in ritual, in which memory and hope are expressed, that is, the two forms of memory are connected with each other in the ritual action. The Christian liturgy is a form of such ritual. The liturgical community gives room to the individual believer, who reflects on the events of his or her own life in a form of communicative-liturgical remembrance.16 In the Christian ritual the facts and experiences of one’s own life, and those of parents and grandparents, lived within the clock time of a few generations, are, in prayer and reflection, placed within and connected 12  Bruce T. Morill SJ, Anamnesis as Dangerous Memory: Political and Liturgical Theology in Dialogue (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 147. 13  Anscar J. Chupungco OSB, What, Then, Is Liturgy? Musings and Memoir (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2010), 78. 14  Meyer, Eucharistie, Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, 448: “Indem Gott und sein Volk einander gedenken, vergegenwärtigen sie sich einander, geben sich Anteil an einander.” 15  Assmann, Das Kulturelle Gedächtnis, 50-56. 16  For this and the following term, see Thomas Quartier, Bridging the Gaps: An Empirical Study of Catholic Funeral Rites (Zürich and Berlin: Lit, 2007), 35ff. and 166.



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

121

with the cultural-liturgical remembrance of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, the message of salvation of the New Testament. Remembrance in the biblical and liturgical sense of the word is not merely a form of looking back on the past, but a form of bringing the past into the present on the basis of current questions and experiences. What happened then, Jesus’s death on the cross and everything connected with that, has an immediate relevance for the present of the remembering faith community: it awakens the expectation that in the present and the future such a liberating, forgiving, and hopeful experience is also possible. The ritual, especially that of the Eucharist and of the feasts of the liturgical year, represents the past event and makes present its liberating and salvific significance. The rift with the past is overcome by involvement and an emotional tie with events of the past. As Assmann puts it: That one remembers is a matter of affective ties, cultural formation, and a conscious relationship with the past which overcomes the rift. These same elements determine that which we call cultural remembrance and elevate it above the business of tradition.17

The place where liturgical remembrance pre-eminently occurs is in the Eucharist. Thanksgiving for God’s great deeds in the cross and resurrection of Christ develops into remembrance. In short: thanksgiving becomes remembrance. In this way, the community becomes a sharer in the reality of Christ’s Kingdom, understood as a reality, present in our midst.18 By means of remembrance, the celebrating community participates in Christ’s reality and in his Kingdom. Schmemann emphasizes that the central issue here is not the bread and wine that become body and blood of Christ, but Christ’s founding of the Church as an eschatological reality, as the beginning of the Kingdom which Christ lets the faithful share in by means of the Eucharist. “… the kingdom of God … is manifested at the last supper, granted to the Church and remembered, in its presence and actuality, in the eucharist.”19 This ecclesial nature of the anamnesis also becomes apparent in the fact that it is not merely a mental, inward act of remembering, but that it is of a communal nature. “In the liturgy the rite is carried out in words  Assmann, Das Kulturelle Gedächtnis, 34: “Dass man sich an sie erinnert ist Sache affektiver Bindung, Kultureller Formung und bewussten, den Bruch überwindenden Vergangenheitsbezuch. Dieselben Elemente prägen das, was wir das Kulturelle Gedächtnis nennen und heben es über das Geschäft der Überlieferung hinaus.” The author here uses a rather static and historically determined definition of the term tradition. 18  Schmemann, The Eucharist, 200. 19  Ibid., 201f., cf. 123-131. 17

122

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

and gestures, and often with symbols and material elements. It is the way whereby the Church remembers the paschal mystery.”20 This ritual remembrance is closely connected with praying for God’s Spirit and God’s presence, the ἐπίκλησις. The community calls to mind God’s great deeds in Christ and prays for his saving and forgiving strength. After reminding God about his saving works we can, with confidence, ask God in turn to remember. We pray that through the Holy Spirit God will do again and again in our day what he accomplished in ages past through Christ. … Epiclesis completes the action of anamnesis. Salvation history or God’s descent to humanity shifts to the liturgy, which is humanity’s ascent to God through Christ in the Spirit.21

With A.J. Chupungco, we can therefore state that remembrance in the liturgy is always accompanied by epicletic prayer for God’s presence and the realization of his promises in the present.22 The relationship between past and present that comes about through liturgical remembrance is a dynamic relationship. The present keeps looking to the past for what it means for the present generation, and the past urges itself on the present in various ways, for instance as a promise or as a call to action. This lively relationship exists in the liturgy as the connection between the monument of tradition on the one hand and remembrance on the other. Remembrance activates tradition and carries it forward. For where liturgical remembrance no longer takes place, the liturgical monument of tradition is forgotten and the process of liturgical tradition comes to a standstill. In the present moment of the remembrance, the main issue is the appropriation of God’s Word by means of the monument of tradition. This process is set in motion and comes about by the repeated and ever new act of remembrance. 4.  Remembrance and Tradition The two terms “liturgical remembrance” and “liturgical tradition” are, accordingly, closely related. Three aspects of this relationship may be formally distinguished.  Chupungco, What, Then, Is Liturgy?, 78.  Ibid., 79. 22  This is a theological and not a historical statement. Liturgical history shows that the formal, explicit epiclesis has not always been present in Eucharistic Prayers, while prayer for the Spirit to bring about God’s saving presence seems a constant element in the Liturgy. 20 21



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

123

1. The Community’s Remembrance Makes Use of Liturgical Tradition as Monument The celebrating community focuses hearts and minds on persons and events and tidings of the past. There is, accordingly, an acting community that makes use of stories, hymns, prayers, and rituals, so that by means of them it might focus its attention on what happened once upon a time. These stories, hymns, prayers, and rituals form (a part of) the liturgical monument of tradition that the community uses in its present, remembering actions. It is made present for the sake of remembrance. We remember, and the monument of tradition provides us with the necessary means, thus giving direction and underpinning to our remembrance. Ritually speaking, this Christian liturgical action can be compared to the solemnity of a commemoration of the dead at a war monument. A community gathers at a monument commemorating war or liberation and performs certain acts, such as a speech, musical elements, laying a wreath, or other gestures. In this way, events of the past are remembered, events that continue to be relevant to the present. Just as in the liturgy, in this commemoration two poles are distinguishable: on the one hand the remembering and acting community, on the other the monument, which stands for the story of the past concerned and for the acts of commemoration it offers the opportunity for and exhorts to. 2. The Community’s Remembrance Is Part of Tradition as a Process Liturgical celebrations make use of the liturgical tradition and so also become a part of that liturgical tradition. In their current reality, they are an expression of the wish of a group of people to celebrate a certain reality of faith and to this end remember a certain past. For a liturgical celebration to be successful, a process of communication will have to come into being: communicating between the two poles of the community present here and now, wishing to remember; the past that is made present by means of the monument. The process of transfer by means of the liturgy takes place through this communication: the monument is observed, interpreted, appropriated, and applied by the current community. Each new generation coming together as a community of faith, in order to remember God’s deeds in Christ, and making use of the liturgy as a monument of tradition, is itself also a part of the living process of tradition. It adds a link to the chain.

124

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

3.  The Community’s Remembrance Is Taken up into Tradition as Monument For twenty centuries, the Christian community has commemorated and celebrated in its liturgical acts the salvation that Christ brought. These repeated liturgical acts have created a tradition, one that exhibited both continuity and renewal, both loyalty to the origin and openness for development. Remembering the original events was not an automatism, but was done by living, thinking, feeling people who gained deeper insight in the action of remembering and they enriched it with explanations, interpretations, expressions of experience, and contemporary applications. The custom of liturgical remembrance became a tradition, the once-only depositum was handed down liturgically in concepts and images that developed to a greater or lesser degree, in stories and rituals that either kept being renewed or remained unchanged, in always the same or also new languages and cultures. A repertory of texts and customs developed. In this way, the liturgy as a community’s act of remembrance led to a monument of texts and customs that is always a part of the liturgy’s process of tradition.

5.  Stagnation in the Liturgical Tradition Process Participants in the liturgical process of tradition described above may have the experience of it stagnating. This is the case when the liturgical process that was set in motion by the act of remembrance breaks down or is insufficiently realized. The reality that is transmitted does not reach those who are remembering and celebrating, or not sufficiently. At this point we pose the question whether the six stagnation factors that we distinguished can be identified as disturbances in the process of tradition. Are these factors the cause of the decrease in the dynamic between present and past which is characteristic of the concept of tradition? More specifically, how is the stagnation linked to the concept of tradition and can the stagnation factor be localized in one of the parts of the liturgical tradition? Is there a connection with the three structural elements of the tradition process? The first structural element is God’s self-gift that is expressed in Christ, the Word of God. He mainly speaks in sacred Scripture. Scripture is the abiding source in which God’s words resound, and in particular God’s Word in Christ. The first factor, the decreased role of Scripture, thus has most to do with the first structural element. ­However, the second factor, the decreased understanding of sign or



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

125

s­ acrament, is also closely related with the first structural element: Christ is the sacrament of divine encounter. He is the visible sign of the invisible God, who gives himself and lets himself be encountered by means of that Sign.23 These two factors are primarily located on the side of God’s self-gift in Christ, but also have a connection with the side of appropriation. For both Scripture and the sacraments presuppose faith and receptiveness, which are both formed partly under their influence. They function together with the other four factors: legalism to the detriment of the inner, spiritual experience of the liturgy; a lessened sense of community; clericalization, to the detriment of the communal aspect of the liturgical celebration; and the weakening of the relationship with the surrounding culture, to the detriment of the cultural aspect of the liturgy. The liturgy as tradition is thus made to stagnate by these six aspects, two of which form a hindrance both on the side of divine giving and, together with the other four, on the side of human reception. On the one hand, then, there is a decrease of accessibility of God’s self-gift in Christ due to the first two stagnation factors; on the other hand, there is a decreased comprehensibility for the present-day human person (whether due to a collaboration of all six factors, or one or a few of those factors separately). What is the role of the third structural element, the monument of tradition? The divine self-gift and human appropriation, as seen already, are mediated by the monument of tradition. In crystallized form, both structural elements are present in the liturgical monument of tradition. This is precisely where we find stagnation factors. The monument of tradition is the transmitted liturgy, which is characterized by hindering factors. In other words, the question about liturgical reform is focused on the liturgy as a monument of tradition in which all three elements play a part. This is in fact the liturgical heritage. The idea of the stagnation of the liturgy, as a monument of tradition, then, means this liturgical heritage that contains the three structural elements: God’s self-gift through Christ in the Spirit, the appropriation by the believer and the community, and the mediation between those two by means of the monument of tradition. In the course of history, the liturgical monument of tradition is built up when the liturgical process keeps adding new phases. Every new liturgical act makes use of this developed liturgical heritage as its material. It is indispensable for celebrations that wish  Edward Schillebeeckx OP, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, Collected Works 1 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014), 38-42, 95. 23

126

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

to be part of the Christian tradition. But at the same time, it also shows signs of the stagnation of the liturgical process that has taken place in history. 6.  The Stagnation Factors in the Liturgical Tradition Process Separately The liturgy, as an act of remembrance in the present, activates the monument of tradition. A community celebrates the liturgy and, in so doing, is a part of the liturgical tradition. By experience of the “snags” in this process to tradition, the community discovers the stagnation factors peculiar to this tradition. In each of these structural elements which make up the tradition, stagnation factors will play a part in a distinct way, which is considered here. Approaching the stagnation factors from the three structural elements separately has a drawback, however, because it risks isolating the different forms of stagnation from each other too much. The three structural elements can only be distinguished, not separated, and cannot be seen as unconnected with one another. Together, they bring about the process of tradition. The stagnation cannot be traced back to these elements individually, only to their joint functioning. This link must be kept under consideration as far as possible. 1. Within the Framework of the Mediating Monument of Tradition The monuments of tradition, such as the liturgy, have a preserving function regarding the Word of God as it is received by people. They preserve the expressions of God’s Word and the human reactions to them as these arose in various times and places. The monument of tradition of the liturgy, then, preserves a wealth of liturgical material stemming from all the centuries of Christianity. This material of course displays the markings of the times in which it came into being and of the communities that created or used it. The weaker aspects of a form of liturgy from a certain period have consequently also come to be a part of the liturgical monument of tradition. All six forms of liturgical stagnation distinguished above can be recognized to different degrees and in different phases in the liturgical heritage. Liturgical history shows that certain stagnation factors are characteristic in certain periods.24 Present-day  For examples, see IV.4, n. 44.

24



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

127

l­iturgy makes use of elements of the liturgical monument of tradition; some of them it employs enthusiastically in its celebrations, of others it is keenly aware of their deficiencies. One and the same element, Gregorian chant for instance, can be both a strong element in the liturgical communication, and a factor that causes stagnation, depending on the liturgical celebration, the execution of the music, and the formation and preconceptions of the liturgical participants. The liturgical monument of tradition is therefore a reflection of the factual history of liturgical action. It is not a construct based on the liturgical views or the liturgical ideals of a certain period. The liturgy of the present is liturgy of tradition, it is the product of the liturgical transmission of centuries. Not every element of tradition carries the same weight, many elements disappear from view, but its outlines are not ignored. This means that both the elements derived from the liturgical tradition that do well in the liturgical communication and those that cause more stagnation, play their part in the present-day liturgy. 2. Within the Framework of God’s Self-gift in Christ The liturgical tradition springs from the source that is Christ. His words and deeds form the origin of the Christian liturgy. Liturgy consists of the handing down from generation to generation of those words and deeds and of the human response to them. It is possible, however, that this process of liturgical tradition becomes detached from that origin to a greater or lesser extent, that it is cut off from the source. Liturgy has to be transparent and has to make the person and the message of Christ perceptible. It must communicate him throughout time. If it doesn’t succeed in this, the ritual may become an end in itself, and undergo a form of fossilization. The two central and primary means by which Christ gives himself in the liturgical tradition are Scripture and preaching, and sacrament and symbol. These two ways in which Christ manifests himself in the liturgy consist of human language and earthly elements, which both become bearers of this divine manifestation. Each of the two means may be hindered in their functioning. Human language and the use of earthly elements as signs, after all, may exhibit all kinds of imperfections that obstruct their communicative function. When it comes to stagnation in the process of liturgical tradition, here the first two stagnation factors are recognizable in disrupting in these two forms of manifestation.

128

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

a) Scripture and Preaching An important part of the Christian, and especially the Catholic and Protestant, liturgy is the proclamation of Scripture and the preaching of its message. In Scripture God speaks to the human being, through the human language of prophets, apostles, and other witnesses led by the Spirit, with the intent of being understood. There are various ways in which this part of the liturgical tradition may be endangered – if for instance Scripture is read in an unknown, unintelligible language, or if the reading of it is reduced to short and few fragments, or if an unreliable translation is used. In general, two types of risks can be distinguished. First, the tendency to stay as close as possible to an ancient form of Scripture and raise objections to newer translations, so that the intelligibility is in danger. Second, the tendency to come as close as possible to the experience of those present or of the current times and adapt the message accordingly, so that the reliability becomes uncertain. The proclamation of the Christian message, based on Scripture, may also be endangered, if for instance it is often left out or minimalized, or is insufficiently based on the message of Christ and his apostles, or presents a faulty image of it, or contains insufficient elements that the hearers can recognize and apply to their own lives. In this way, the person of Christ and his message are not or insufficiently handed down in the liturgy and it does not serve its purpose. Scripture and preaching are a hermeneutical reality. They presuppose a circle of listeners and cannot be seen as separate from the appropriation of them by the faithful. The intelligibility of Scripture and the reliability of translation and preaching depend not only on what is offered, but at least as much on the manner and conditions of reception. b) Sacrament and Symbol From the beginning, symbols have been used in Christian celebrations of the sacraments and other rituals. Examples of this are submersion in water, laying on hands, anointing with oil, and sharing bread and wine. These liturgical acts mediate God’s grace and his blessing through the expressiveness of the symbol. The believer sees the perceptible signs and by means of these signs becomes a sharer in the invisible reality of spiritual purification, confirmation, strengthening, and nourishment. Sacramental theology suggests that the extent to which faithful recognition and endorsement are a precondition for receiving that grace



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

129

varies.25 In general, as concluded above, the liturgy is a dialogical event, an encounter between God and human person, and that human input is therefore essential to the sacraments. That people understand and recognize the liturgical symbols, and are moved by them, is of great importance for a true celebration of the liturgy. Various causes may disrupt this communicative function of the sacraments and the other symbols. This may be by a minimal performance of the liturgical acts or a greatly reduced manifestation of liturgical symbols such as bread or water or oil, so that their function as a sign is compromised. Examples of this is the general use, in the past, include the use of extremely thin wafers for the eucharist which bear hardly any resemblance to bread; and of a few drops of water for baptism which are no longer recognizably a pool of water.26 We can also observe an excess, even an excrescence, of symbols and acts, which lessens their eloquence. In this context the Council argues for simplicity and clarity. Presenting new liturgical symbols and acts can make the person of Christ present in a surprising way, but may also obstruct the view of him, due to unfamiliarity. Here, too, we see that symbols are always a form of communication and that whether they are understood is determined not only by their presentation but also by their reception. 3. Within the Framework of Human Appropriation Liturgy is celebrated new by each person, each group, and each generation. What the liturgical tradition hands down and offers requires acceptance and appropriation, and each person will respond to it in his or her own way. All six stagnation factors influence human appropriation as a part of the process of liturgical tradition in a negative way. But how does this function concretely? The first three hindering factors primarily have to do with the individual person within the liturgy, his or her understanding, reception, and experience of what is celebrated and shared in the liturgy. The fourth and fifth factors relate to the c­ elebrating  As was discussed above under III.2.1.  White, Roman Catholic Worship, 62; Andrea Grillo, “The Pros and Cons of Liturgical Theology in an Interdisciplinary Perspective: Vatican II and the Challenges for a Theology of the Liturgy Today,” in Mediating Mysteries, Understanding Liturgies: On Bridging the Gap between Liturgy and Systematic Theology, ed. Joris Geldhof, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 228 (Leuven, Paris, and Bristol, CT: Peeters, 2015), 209-230, at 226. 25

26

130

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

community. The sixth factor pertains to the cultural dimension of the liturgy.27 a) Scripture and Preaching The reading of Scripture and the preaching of the message of Christ call for understanding, reception, and appropriation on the part of the hearers. There may, however, be numerous factors present in them that cause Scripture and preaching to miss their mark. In the first place, this might be an inability to understand the language, images, or presuppositions used, which is caused by insufficient information or initiation. Besides a means, Scripture may also be an obstacle to getting to know Christ’s message, as it is historically and culturally very different from current circumstances. To those in contemporary western society who did not grow up in a Christian context like earlier generations and so never became familiar with the accompanying images and concepts, as well as to those who are baptized but received little biblical catechesis, most forms of liturgical Scripture reading and preaching are foreign. The incarnational nature of Christianity – its historical connection to a different, specific culture and a different time – inevitably causes an everwidening chasm between the source and the present. b) Sacrament and Symbol The symbols of the Christian tradition as well, a number of which have their origin in Christ and the life of the earliest Christian community, are characterized by a “strangeness” for contemporary audience. Contemporary ritual studies emphasize that people use symbols in many ways to communicate the ineffable. This proves they can and do make use of an abundance of rituals and symbols.28 Utilizing symbols that are rooted in the past and in a different culture, however, is for a part of the faithful becoming increasingly difficult. This applies to the central symbols that the sacramental celebrations employ, but also to elements such as incense, holy water, colors, robes, and candlelight. In others ambiguity will be found and so new meanings will be perceived in them. The continual and radical state of change of contemporary culture is an 27  These factors were described above in chapter IV.2, here they are only described in respect of how they hinder appropriation within liturgical tradition. 28  Lukken, Rituals in Abundance, 3.



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

131

important aspect of this.29 For the celebrating faithful who are a part of these rapid changes, such symbols may become obstacles instead of means of liturgical communication. c) Legalism and Rubricism There is also a downside to the experience of the content of the liturgy in listening to Scripture and celebrating the sacrament. The historic emphasis on the validity of the liturgy and the minimally necessary for this presents two examples here: concentration on the central act of a sacrament, and the practice of scrupulously following the rubrics. This “sacramental minimalism” and rubricism are examples of what may generally be called an increasing legalism. Characteristic of this trend is a disproportionate amount of attention for the procedural, juridical dimension of the liturgy, for instance when the success of a liturgical celebration is measured solely by the correct execution of the rubrics. The correctness of the execution of the external ritual then becomes so much an end in itself that its communicative nature is in danger of being forgotten. In this case, the celebrating believer does implicitly receive the message and the presence of Christ, but there is too little opportunity for these to touch their mind and heart. d) Decreased Sense of Community In the course of time, the sense that the local faith community is the subject of the liturgy has eroded. The Council wished to restore this early Christian reality. The collective believers, in their diversity and in their unity in Christ, celebrate the liturgy. It is the people of God that performs the liturgical acts, with their various ministries and roles. The ordained ministers bear a special responsibility within this context; the bishop and priest in particular represent Christ as the head of his body. They work together with other believers who, on the basis of their baptism, are entitled and called to active participation in the liturgy. When this sense of community is lost and the liturgy is seen as an individual affair between believer and priest, an essential dimension is missing. The faithful receive and celebrate salvation together and share it with one another. The New Testament bears witness to Christ’s intention for this to be so from the very beginning. Christ’s salvation is received and  Lukken, Rituals in Abundance, 280.

29

132

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

e­xperienced, precisely through and within the faithful community. Within this community, there is a diversity of gifts that becomes visible in the various forms of liturgical participation. The sense of kinship among the faithful in forgiveness, in solidarity, and in common praise, is also an essential element of the liturgical celebration. The communication of Christ with contemporary believers does not come about separately from the communication of the believers among themselves. In the liturgy, this is made visible in the interaction between the different roles. The liturgical tradition consists in reception and transmission by believers collectively. The lessening of this awareness leads to a faulty, stagnating liturgical process. e) Clericalization The other side of the Christian experience of community is found in what is called “clericalization,” the overemphasis on the role of ordained ministers and their assistants in the liturgy. The awareness that baptism and confirmation authorize the faithful to various forms of liturgical action was partially lost in certain periods. The liturgy is then seen more and more as the exclusive field of ordained professionals, while the role of the faithful is limited to that of listening and receiving, and possibly even to that of spectator. Their experience of the liturgy is then too much dependent on the performance of the ordained minister. This leads to a narrowing of the liturgical experience of Christ’s self-gift. The faith community as the subject of the liturgy and its joint relationship with Christ are in this way insufficiently reflected in the liturgical celebration. f) Weakening of the Relationship with Culture People of nearly all cultures and peoples and languages of the world celebrate liturgy. For centuries, Roman Catholic worship took place in a foreign language and often without making use of values and customs of the individual cultures. The language of the liturgical texts is an important means of liturgical communication, along with the use of music, symbols, and ritual acts. If these are foreign to a certain culture, this interferes with the liturgical communication process. If the language that is used is not, or is only poorly, understood, and the rituals used are not recognized within the local culture and therefore cause misunderstandings, Christ’s message cannot be understood and his presence is less easily experienced. In the history of the liturgy, there are numerous examples of people



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

133

t­ranslating the transmitted liturgy, adapting it, or wishing to adapt it to the language or the customs of local cultures. We need only mention the names of Cyril and Methodius, the apostles to the Slavs, the Carolingian liturgical reformers, or Matteo Ricci, who took the initiative to adapt the liturgy to the Chinese culture at the end of the sixteenth century. 7.  The Other Side of Stagnation Most of the important stagnation factors have applied for centuries. It is all the more surprising that the liturgy nevertheless always continued to be celebrated. Despite the many faults, which were especially identified in the past century, the process of liturgical tradition continued. Continuity proves to be one of this tradition’s strong characteristics. This raises various questions. Why were reforms not applied to the liturgy sooner and more often? Or, conversely, why do liturgical customs that are inadequate in all kinds of ways not gradually weaken and die out? Paradoxically, in our times it is precisely the renewed liturgy that seems to be declining in terms of the number of participants in certain parts of the Church, whereas the preconciliar liturgy, which gave rise to so much criticism, was apparently able, in some way, to bind believers to it for a very long time. Was the transmitted liturgy, with all its limitations, nevertheless able to function? Or are there other factors that play a part? Answers might be found using the perspective of the social sciences. Group identity that needs rituals for initiation and the expression of fellowship, can mean the execution of the ritual itself is more important than its original meaning. Had the Christian significance of the liturgy long lost its relevance for a part of the ecclesial community? Group pressure, often effectuated by the hierarchy of the Church and certain forms of preaching, leading to most believers being unable to avoid what was called the “obligation” to attend Sunday Mass may also be significant. If one rejects these hypotheses other extenuating influences may be seen: the stagnation factors were not present everywhere, at the same time, and to the same degree. Sufficient opportunities for liturgical communication remained. The role of personal devotions and popular piety in this context are also deserving of further study.30 Perhaps that is where people 30  See for example Theo Clemens, “Liturgy and Piety in the Netherlands during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” in Omnes Circumstantes, ed. Caspers and ­Schneiders, 197-217.

134

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

found the full and authentic religiosity of which only fragments were experienced in the official liturgy. A different path in considering this is also available. The emphasis has been on the possibilities of gaining knowledge, as an essential part of the liturgical tradition. In this model, participation in a liturgical celebration presupposes an intellectual understanding of Scripture and preaching, of sacraments and other symbols, an understanding of the various parts of the celebration. The stagnation factors, derived from the liturgical document of the Second Vatican Council, largely pertain to this cognitive comprehension of the liturgical acts. Language, explanation, simplicity, and clarity therefore play an important part, as argued in the constitution on the liturgy. Given that human beings are thinking creatures, there can be no objection to the aim of the liturgical reforms to make the liturgy more intelligible. It certainly has this cognitive dimension. Here, however, a certain one-sidedness of these reforms appears to come to the fore. For human beings are, certainly in the religious sphere, also experiential creatures. The liturgy demands and invites communication on multiple levels. The celebrations involve not only rational understanding and insight, but also an experience of that which transcends our thought. The stagnation factors only relate to a part of the liturgical communication. Other aspects of the liturgical reality must be considered too.31 The term “stagnation factor,” then, is used one-sidedly, i.e., for factors that cause stagnation on a cognitive level. These factors are derived from the constitution on the liturgy of the Second Vatican Council leading to the conclusion that the Council had a strong focus on this form of liturgical communication. Its objective was the intelligibility of texts and symbols, the active participation on a cognitive level which apparently was mainly at issue at that time. The more affectional dimension of the liturgy, concerning experience, the senses, and corporality, was apparently not much discussed at the Council. Stagnating factors on that level were not considered, nor were they taken into account in the reforms. Presently, however, stagnation of this sort is happening. A liturgical celebration that is cognitively unambiguous and clear leaves little room for mystery, imagination, and experience and is therefore stagnating in a different way. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider these and similar alternative stagnation factors further. What can be  This parallels the second agenda, “recatholicizing the reform,” as formulated by Mannion, see IV.3 above. 31



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

135

done, is to reexamine the stagnating factors discussed in the previous chapter, but now from the opposite point of view, that is, with an eye to the communication they enable. Before considering the stagnation factors in this more positive light, the theological background of this dimension of liturgical communication should be examined. Two factors from the theological concept of tradition developed above can make clear why the liturgy, despite obstructions, was still able to persist in its efficacy. In both, it becomes clear that the liturgical communication is focused on a reality that transcends rational thought, but with which affectional contact is nevertheless possible. These two factors are, first of all, the liturgical tradition as a reality of mystery, and secondly, the eschatological dimension of the liturgical tradition. Both point towards a transcendent, extrahistorical reality that presents itself in the liturgy. This reality is not immediately accessible to the rational understanding. The believer can, however, experience this transcendent reality in the words and symbols of the liturgy. Both factors make clear that besides rational transfer, the liturgy also makes an appeal to a nondiscursive, more intuitive form of communication, which does not so much lead to rational insights as offer experiential “knowledge.” 1. The Liturgical Tradition as a Reality of Mystery In our discussion of the characteristics of the monuments of tradition the point arose that they can be characterized as quasi-sacramental signs. Kasper uses this term, on the one hand to indicate the almost sacramental importance of the monuments of tradition, and on the other hand to prevent them from being made absolute. They are visible, earthly, and human elements that function as a sign and representation of the divine, invisible reality. Applying this to the liturgical tradition, the liturgy as a whole has a significance reminiscent of the sacramental; in other words, it is a bearer of divine reality. With a different emphasis, Congar pointed this out as well. He stresses that the tradition not only conveys knowledge regarding salvation in Christ, but is especially helpful in the transmission of the reality of that salvation itself. Tradition, and this applies pre-eminently to the liturgy, contains the mystery of Christ’s salvation, in particular his death and resurrection.32 This, according to Congar, is the preserving aspect of the liturgy, it contains and sustains the mystery of Christ.  Te Velde, “Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition,” 205f.

32

136

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

It was one of the intentions of the Council’s liturgical reform that the faithful would gain a better understanding of the mystery of the liturgy and participate in it more fully.33 The term “mystery” was studied by O. Casel and applied as a central concept for the liturgy. In his Das christliche Kultmysterium, he distinguishes three levels of meaning in this term. First of all, he points to the mystery of God in himself, the hidden one, “as the infinitely distant, holy, unapproachable,” who is simultaneously transcendent and immanent.34 The second meaning is that of the revelation of God’s plan of salvation in Christ. The mystery of his incarnation, passion, death and resurrection, and continued life in the Church are the manifestation of God’s love. The third sense is the presence of Christ in the liturgy and especially in the sacraments, the mysteries. Casel here quotes Leo the Great’s famous words: Quod itaque Redemptoris nostri conspicuum fuit, in sacramenta transivit, “What was visible in our Redeemer has passed over into the mysteries.”35 The term mysterium, the Latinization of the Greek μυστήριον, has thus gained a rich theological meaning based on its use in the New Testament. The basic meaning of “secret” or “secret rite,” however, continues to resound in it. After all, mysterium refers not only to the revelation and realization of God’s plan in Christ’s death and resurrection and the liturgical manifestation thereof, but also to the secret, hidden nature of this plan.36 The fact that 33  Sacrosanctum Concilium 48: “Itaque Ecclesia sollicitas curas eo intendit ne christifideles huic fidei mysterio … bene intellegentes, sacram actionem conscie, pie en actuose participent …” 34  Odo Casel OSB, Das christliche Kultmysterium, ed. Burkhard Neunheuser OSB (Regensburg: Pustet, 41960), 22: “… der unendlich Ferne, der Heilige und Unnahbare.” Translation: Odo Casel, The Mystery of Christian Worship, ed. Burkhard Neunheuser, Milestones in Catholic Theology (New York: Crossroads, 1999), 5. 35  Sermo 74.2, Patrologia Latina 54, 398 A. Cited by Casel, Das christliche Kultmysterium, 23. 36  See Casel, Das christliche Kultmysterium, 22-26; Maria J. Krahe, Der Herr ist der Geist: Studien zur Theologie Odo Casels. I: Das Mysterium Christi (St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 1986), 55: “Das Begriff ‘Mysterium’ als Offenbarungsterminus impliziert für Casel den Aspekt des Geheimnisses, des Verborgenen, ebenso wie den des Offenbaren: hin­ sichtlich des Verborgenen allerdings nicht im Sinne des Lehrgeheimnisses … Seine Verborgenheit ist ontologisch begründet in der totalen Andersartigkeit des göttlichen Seins, an dem christliche Offenbarung ‘partizipiert’, …” Cf. also Joseph Ratzinger, “Zum ­Begriff des Sakraments” (1979), idem, Theologie der Liturgie, 215-232, at 219-224. In applying the mysterium-concept to the liturgy we often see more emphasis on the revelatory than on the hidden aspect, see Joris Geldhof, “Meandering in Mystery: Why Theology Today Would Benefit from Rediscovering the Work of Odo Casel,” in Mediating Mysteries, Understanding Liturgies, ed. Geldhof, 11-32, at 22-31 and Winfried Haunerland, “Mysterium paschale: Schlüsselbegriff liturgietheologischer Erneuerung,” in Liturgie als Mitte des christlichen Lebens, ed. Augustin and Koch, 189-209, at 197-200.



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

137

the liturgy contains and hands down the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection is also a mystery in this sense, that it is a hidden, veiled reality. Christ’s reality of salvation, mediated by perceptible signs, is by definition a mystery that cannot be fully fathomed and formulated. “A rite is never exhausted, its meaning never fully resolved …; ambiguity and mystery remain dominant impressions.”37 The revelation does not end the hiddenness. The person who wants to disclose this as expressly and explicitly as possible, runs the risk of bringing about exactly the opposite.38 This mystery can only be communicated as a hidden reality of faith. Anyone wishing to disclose and unfold it may easily miss its richness and indeed its essence. In the liturgy, a hidden reality is present which may at most be pointed to by words and signs but is never completely grasped.39 This reality of salvation is communicated to the participants in an implicit way in the liturgy. Return to the question this section began with, that is, the question how it is possible that the liturgy has always continued, despite all the stagnation involved, from this viewpoint – though with a little exaggeration – the continuation of the liturgy occurred not only despite but also thanks to this very same stagnation. The stagnating factors made the explicit communication more difficult and on a certain level hindered the liturgical transmission. But on a more implicit and hidden level, the liturgy even still handed down the reality of salvation. This reality was received by means of faith, as a faithful acceptance of something that for various, not always legitimate, reasons was not understood. Whilst the liturgy being incomprehensible is not an ideal to strive for, it does have an incomprehensible dimension. On that hidden level of the liturgy, the process of communication and transmission takes place in spite of everything. The term “mystery” as a reference to the hidden reality that is imparted in the liturgy and that cannot be contained in rational language, is directly linked to the sacral or numinous nature of the liturgy. Commentators such as M.F. Mannion and D. Torevell consider the loss of this to be the main shortcoming of the liturgical reform of Vatican  Torevell, Losing the Sacred, 28.  Casel, Das christliche Kultmysterium, 28: “… doch bleibt es Mysterium, weil es etwas wesentlich Göttliches und deshalb dem menschlichen Verstande aus sich unzugängliches und nur durch die Gnade offenbares ist”; 72: “Das Mysterium bleibt immer Mysterium! Es offenbart sich almählich den Augen der Reinen und Demütigen. … Hat die Kirche nicht mit weiser Absicht den Schleier der Kultsprache über die Liturgie gebrei­tet, weil eben das Mysterium nicht im grellen Licht des Alltages stehen soll.” 39  Congar emphasizes this as well. See Te Velde, “Congar on Liturgy as a Monument of Tradition,” 201. 37 38

138

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

II.40 This sheds a different light on certain aspects of liturgical stagnation. The liturgical language, the abundance of rituals that are not always transparent, reserving the liturgical acts for ordained ministers, can also be seen as examples of stagnation factors that underscore the hidden, mysterious, and therefore sacral nature of the liturgy. Such factors, then, do not so much cause stagnation as function as a sign that points to the intangible nature of the reality of salvation that is imparted to those who open themselves to it in faith. With this perspective, it is not unequivocal that these are solely stagnation factors. What causes stagnation in a certain outlook on liturgical communication, in a different, more implicit way, does not cause stagnation, but rather makes liturgical communication possible. 2. The Eschatological Dimension of the Liturgical Tradition The theological concept of tradition found in Congar and Kasper brought to light an eschatological dimension. Kasper in particular underscores that in the liturgy, the new age of God’s Kingdom is already a reality. As we quoted above: The earthly Jesus is identical to the exalted Jesus and through his Spirit He is active presence in the Church. In the word of preaching and the answer of faith, the faithful are drawn out of this old aeon and placed in a new aeon. They are detached from the old context of tradition and enter into a new age that, since Easter, is enduringly present.41

At the same time, people still experience the brokenness, the limitation, and the sinfulness with which salvation is handed down and experienced. The liturgy is a provisional expression of God’s Kingdom, that points ahead to and lets one share in the definitive eschatological realization. Schmemann too declared himself in favor of an eschatological approach to the liturgy.42 He emphasizes, even more strongly than Kasper, that in the liturgy the eschatological reality has already begun. Participants in the liturgy already find themselves in the new reality of the divine ­Kingdom. In the symbol of the liturgy, then, the reality of God’s 40  Torevell, Losing the Sacred, 28f.; 159-169; Mannion, “The Catholicity of the Liturgy,” 28f. 41  Kasper, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 174. 42  Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 73: “The Eucharist or Lord’s Supper is … the actualization of the new aeon within the old, the presence and manifestation in this age of the Kingdom of the Age to come,” quoted earlier in III.3, note 40.



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

139

­ resence is revealed; in the liturgy God is truly present in a sacramental p way. At the same time, the symbol also has something provisional about it and demands a fulfillment, a realization. Even in a perfect, fully developed liturgy, the Kingdom of God remains an outstanding, yet to be awaited reality. The true liturgy is celebrated in God’s Kingdom. Here on earth, it is a road to be travelled and a foretaste of that. There is something paradoxical about this simultaneous presence of and being on the way to God’s Kingdom. The Church prays for the coming of the Lord and at the same time believes that He has come beneath the veil of Word and sacrament. The philosopher C. Pickstock pointed this out and in this respect speaks of the impossibility of the liturgy.43 In her view, the duplications, repetitions, and inconsistencies that the old liturgy contains precisely have the function of c­ ommunicating this eschatological impossibility.44 Simultaneously already and not yet sharing in God’s salvation is a painful reality of Christianity which cannot be indicated rationally, but perhaps can be alluded to by means of the inner contradiction of the liturgy itself. That which I have so far called stagnation factors, can therefore also be understood as characteristics of the provisional nature of the liturgy. Two conclusions arise from Schmemann here: that the true liturgy has not yet been achieved, and that the earthly liturgy, as celebrated by the Church, displays characteristics of the supernal, divine reality.45 Both these eschatological aspects of the liturgy lend it a certain unintelligibility, because of its humanly imperfect nature, and yet also because of its divinely perfect nature that is beyond us. The liturgy inspires hope of the dawn of God’s Kingdom, on the one hand because it is apparently still so far removed from that perfection, and on the other because it is an anticipation, it gives a foretaste or reflection of that ultimate glory. Seen in this light, the stagnation factors may have a positive function in 43  Catherine Pickstock, After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), 184f.: “… in asking God to send His light and truth in order to lead the worshipper to God, the ‘I’ vocalizes more precisely the aporetic impossibility of liturgy: our journey towards God cannot begin before its ending, before God Himself has journeyed towards us”; “Thus it becomes difficult to accord priority either to our journey towards God or His movement towards us …” According to Pickstock, the logical impossibility of the liturgy thus lies in the fact that liturgy can only begin once its goal has already been achieved. 44  Baldovin, Reforming the Liturgy, 21: “Far from the rationalized logic of the contemporary Mass of Paul VI, Pickstock finds the deepest meaning of the traditional Roman Rite (the so-called Tridentine Mass) in its very stops and starts, its hesitancies and its ‘impossible logic’.” 45  Schmemann, The Eucharist, 218 and 221; 39-41.

140

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

the liturgy: they can both remind us of the earthly imperfection of the liturgy which inspires a longing for something better, and with their symbolism of the ineffable point us towards heavenly perfection. 3. The Stagnation Factors in a Different Light The factors that were combatted in the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council and from that particular perspective were held to be stagnation factors, when viewed from another perspective also made a more affectional communication possible These stagnation factors can be considered, albeit briefly and tentatively, in this new light. a) The Role of Scripture and Preaching The Council Fathers judged that the vital role of sacred Scripture had become too limited and therefore asked that the Scripture readings be more numerous and diverse, and that preaching based on the Bible be given more attention. As a solution for this first stagnation factor, then, they mainly chose a quantitative approach: more Scripture readings and more biblical preaching. Another way to let Scripture flow better as a liturgical wellspring is by paying attention to the nature of the Bible fragments and the relation to their context. The Council did not say much about how Scripture functions or is explained. During certain periods of history, the verbal nature of Scripture and preaching has given rise to the temptation of rationality and apologetics. Scripture readings are then used as arguments in support of elements of doctrine. Their proper genre, literary nature, and liturgical context are then lost sight of, whereas these in fact add dimensions to the proclamation. Their meaning is also too greatly isolated in this case. The particular way in which Scripture functions in the liturgy can be expounded in various ways. To consider just one of these. The dialogical relationship between the different fragments of Scripture in the liturgy, the intertextuality, is often at issue in the liturgy. It expresses the participation in and continuation of salvation history.46 Intertextuality comes about in the liturgy when Scripture texts are interrelated in various ways, in the liturgy of the hours in readings and responsories, psalms and antiphons, in the Eucharist in the structure of the liturgy of the word, with alternation of reading,  Gerhards and Kranemann, Einführung in die Liturgiewissenschaft, 165.

46



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

141

psalm, reading, alleluia, gospel. “The Old and New Testament texts set in relation to one another engage in a mutual interrogation and commentary. The psalm and the alleluia open up a particular horizon of understanding.”47 The dialogue between the biblical text and the other liturgical texts as well, and the use of certain Scripture readings for certain feast days, can produce new, unpredictable meanings. The intertextual approach can lead to a more mysterious mode of preaching, in which both salvation history and the current horizon of understanding resound. In the role of Scripture in the liturgy, the emphasis can then come to be on the diversity of meanings and the literary and proclamatory quality of the fragments presented. The point is to do justice to the richness and the many voices of a text.48 Another aspect is the liturgical manner of declaiming a Bible text, for example a recitation or a cantilena. This can better bring out its sacral nature and bring about liturgical communication on a musical level. b) Sacramentality and Symbolism It was the Council’s view that sacraments and liturgical symbols are often not understood by modern people. The symbolism of the liturgy has to be manifested differently: with more simplicity, conciseness, and clarity. Sacrosanctum Concilium 34’s remedy of noble simplicity and transparency of the signs, is, however, not the right one for all shortcomings. We are here dealing with a one-sided, overly rational notion of symbols, emphasizing the intelligibility of the ritual. Torevell points out the nonrational dimension of symbolic acts and rituals.49 He also comprehensively works through the initially mainly bodily character of rituals, which gradually made way for a more intellectual approach. The “disembodiment” of the ritual kept pace with its devaluation.50 The Eastern liturgy shows that it is precisely the physical sensation, but also the repetition, the exuberance, and the accumulation that lead not so much to insight as to an awareness of the ineffable and transcendent and can lead to accompanying experiences such as emotionality and joy. This also applies to seeming contradictions in the ordo, as Pickstock describes them,51 and to not 47  Gerhards and Kranemann, Einführung in die Liturgiewissenschaft, 165; trans.: Gerhards and Kranemann, Introduction to theStudy of Liturgy, 128. 48  Gerhards and Kranemann, Einführung in die Liturgiewissenschaft, 166. 49  Torevell, Losing the Sacred, 30. 50  Ibid., 80. See, furthermore, the entire chapter: 80-115. 51  Pickstock, After Writing, 184f.

142

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

i­mmediately comprehensible symbols.52 Simplifying the liturgical symbols and making them more transparent, sends the message that they have a reasonable, comprehensible meaning. When, in fact, they relate to a rationally unknowable, hidden reality, it is not strange that they themselves are also of an irrational and intangible nature. c) The Legal Dimension Above, we discussed the tension that is always present in the liturgy between its validity and its fruitfulness. We saw that the Council emphasizes the second factor and turns against the risk of liturgical minimalism. Despite the risks, however, liturgical clarity remains a strong point of the Latin rite. Because the liturgy is celebrated in very diverse and changeable circumstances throughout the world, clarity about the central acts, the conditions for validity, and the precise order of the rituals is desirable, for the sake of the unity of the liturgical tradition. The objectivity of the liturgy, the fact that the presider is only allowed to leave his subjective mark on it to a limited degree, is also safeguarded by the liturgical rules. The careful following of the rubrics prevents the liturgy from being cut down to the personal size of the celebrant. These rubrics, however, by no means always lead to logical or transparent sequences. Precisely the legally safeguarded necessity of following liturgical rules that are not rationally necessary, is a means of approaching the mystery. An example of this is the lavabo in the ritual of the Mass, during the preparation of the gifts. This custom is sometimes omitted, apparently because the liturgical handwashing is not a comprehensible act for everyone at that moment. The consequence of this is that an eloquent symbol of inner purification, as a preparation for the encounter with the sacred, is lost. d) Sense of Community The accentuation of the communal nature of the liturgy is an authentically Christian element that we encounter frequently in the New Testament. In the liturgical reform, it is also a reaction to the stagnating effect of 52  For instance, the commixtio, part of the communion rite in the Roman Ordo Missae, the meaning of which the liturgists do not agree on. See Meyer, Eucharistie, Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, 207 and 358; Kunzler, Die Liturgie der Kirche, 374f., and Michael Witczak, “The Sacramentary of Paul VI,” in The Eucharist, ed. Anscar J. Chupungco, Handbook for Liturgical Studies 3 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 133-175, at 167.



CHAPTER V: THE LITURGICAL TRADITION PROCESS

143

c­ lericalism and individualism with regard to salvation. The postconciliar emphasis on the communal nature of the liturgy was accordingly experienced by many as a liberation. The awareness that the liturgy is a communal event, however, does not have the wind in its sails in contemporary times. There is a general, societal tendency of individualization going on, which appears to express itself particularly in the religious domain. The communal nature of the liturgy may well be a hindrance to the participation of those who travel a more individual path. Does the current liturgy offer enough space for the individual seeking personal answers to spiritual questions, who is not, or not yet, ready for the experience of community? Does the preconciliar liturgy have characteristics that better lend themselves to a more individual experience? Did the Council’s reforms take this factor into account sufficiently? These are questions that need attention demand further investigation. The individual and clerical element of the liturgy that was experienced as a stagnation factor might now, more than fifty years later, turn out to be a medium for liturgical communication. e) The Ministerial Dimension The relationship between the two ways that the faithful share in Christ’s priesthood, the universal priesthood of all believers on the basis of baptism, and the particular, pastoral priesthood of ministers on the basis of the sacrament of ordination, keeps leading to new tensions in the liturgy. The way the liturgical roles are filled varies from, on the one hand, an extensive “democratization” of the liturgy in which the specific liturgical role of the priest according to the Catholic tradition is only minimally expressed, to, on the other hand, a dominant presence of the priest who assumes all liturgical tasks. The presence of the sacerdos, however, need not only be associated with a position of power. The question presents itself whether the priest’s service as a mediator between the transcendent and earthly spheres, as occurs in many religions, does not deserve new attention within liturgiology as well. Sacred acts that are reserved for the priest, that take place at a distance from those present, and that make contact with the divine reality, fit in with the hidden, mysterious nature of the liturgy. Is the need for a figure mediating the sacred not an anthropological given? f) The Relationship between Liturgy and Culture The theme of inculturation is relevant in a new way, now that, over fifty years after the Council, the Western, especially European, culture can less

144

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

and less be considered a Christian culture. The secular and plural society that has arisen in the last half century questions the way in which the Christian liturgy is celebrated in a world that is less and less able to understand its language and symbolism. At the same time, the pluralization of the culture means that common and generally accessible languages and customs are not easily found. Adapting the liturgy to the prevailing culture thus seems to be becoming increasingly difficult. This also sheds new light on the demand for a more inductive and adequate liturgy. Further investigation is warranted into the question of the extent to which the liturgy should instead be an intriguing and provocative cultural alternative, an appellant expression of a Christian counterculture that is not immediately comprehensible in the prevailing language, customs, and values, but does evoke an inkling of a message of joy and hope that transcends cultural boundaries. Kavanagh is an example of this view. He described how the liturgy loses its subversive power if it adapts to an existing culture.53 In his view, the Catholic liturgy ought to present a powerful, countercultural dynamic of transcendence and community.54

53  Kavanagh, On Liturgical Theology, 116f., 156-161 where he contrasts “orthodox normality” with the abnormality of the world. 54  Cf. Torevell, Losing the Sacred, 167.

Chapter VI

Evaluation Criteria for Liturgical Reform on the Basis of the Concept of Tradition 1.  Criteria for Liturgical Reform The next logical step in this study is to ask whether from the perspective on liturgy as tradition principles might be derived that can serve as a point of departure for liturgical reforms. Does the liturgical concept of tradition offer insights that can serve as criteria, or prerequisites, for the success of a liturgical reform or for the evaluation of one after the fact? What are the fruits of the concept of tradition for our insight into liturgical reforms? In the first chapter liturgical reform was defined “the deliberate improvement of all or the most important parts of the liturgy of an ecclesial community, both the ritual and the spiritual aspects of it, by or on behalf of the church leadership.” Should the criteria for liturgical reform not be derived from this chosen definition? This is what ­Klöckener does in his article “Liturgiereformen in der Geschichte.” There, he mentions seven criteria that he introduces as follows: “Historical research shows that there have to be various criteria present in order to be able to call something a liturgical reform.” For him the criteria are the building blocks that together shape a proper, complete liturgical reform.1 In this study the understanding of criteria is not derived from the definition. Liturgical reform must, of course, answer the terms of its own definition if it is to be worthy of the name. But a good reform of the liturgy derives its criteria from a greater reality, which it does not coincide with but which does determine it. Liturgy, and therefore also liturgical reform, is based on a greater reality from which it derives its standards. This study reaches the conclusion that this reality underpinning the liturgy is the Christian, theological concept of tradition, and it is from this that these criteria are derived. They make clear the fundamental  Klöckener, “Liturgiereformen in der Geschichte,” 60.

1

146

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

conditions a liturgical reform must meet in order to achieve its aim, whilst also being instruments for the evaluation of that reform. The abovementioned four terms: principles, points of departure, criteria, and prerequisites or conditions, are all applicable here. The aim is to find a fundamental principle that serves as a guide for further actions, a substantive principle that is not called into question but forms the basis for further steps in reasoning or in practical actions. The term “criterion” emphasizes discernment and review. The principle that functions as a criterion is, for example, expected to distinguish between true and untrue, or between useful and useless. In this case, the concern is with propositions that function as a test for a successful liturgical reform. The term “condition” indicates that implementing or fulfilling the proposition is a requirement for the reform measure in question; without the principle in question, something essential would be missing. Accordingly, it is not enough just to determine points of departure or principles, but also to ascribe to them a testing, evaluating, and even conditional activity. In what follows a number of propositions are presented that, ahead of time, are essential and indispensable for a successful liturgical reform, and that can therefore be used afterwards to review it. In what follows the term “evaluation criterion” is used, but we also want the other three meanings to be heard in this. Various authors have pondered the principles for liturgical reform. A. Reid brought an important principle into the limelight: that of organic development.2 The various principles that can be derived from this, put forward by J. Ratzinger, will be discussed below. K. Koch added two others to these, also derived from the constitution on the liturgy: that of simplicity and comprehensibility, and that of conscious and active participation.3 Both are directly related to appropriation as an element of liturgical tradition. The first aims to promote appropriation, the second is an important aspect of it. D. Saliers reflects on the theological basis of liturgical reforms. He makes a connection with the prophetic, evangelical criticism of the chasm between liturgy and life, and 2  Alcuin Reid OSB, The Organic Development of the Liturgy: The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the Twentieth-century Liturgical Movement Prior to the Second Vatican Council (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 22005), 303-311 and idem, “Eine Präzisiering von The Organic Development of Liturgy: Das grundlegende Prinzip zur Beurteilung der Reform,” in Römische Messe und Liturgie in der Moderne, ed. Stephan Wahle, Helmut Hoping, and Winfried Haunerland (Freiburg i.Br: Herder, 2013), 73-102, at 99-101. 3  Kurt Koch, “Liturgical Reform and the Unity of the Christian Churches,” Studia Liturgica 44 (2014): 54-65, at 60-62.



CHAPTER VI: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LITURGICAL REFORM

147

of the relation with one’s image of the Church.4 He also points out the tension between returning to the sources of the liturgy and adaptation to the continually changing sociocultural contexts in which the liturgy is celebrated, between ressourcement and aggiornamento. “At the theological heart of liturgical reform is the dual demand of fidelity to tradition and adequacy to the present demands of the Gospel in the present age.”5 This dual fidelity that Saliers observes, is related to the tension between two of the structural elements of the concept of tradition, the self-gift of Christ and human appropriation. As already observed in the introduction, answering the question of the extent to which the liturgical reform by order of the Second Vatican Council adhered to these principles is not part of the aim of this study. That question will have to be answered on the basis of liturgy-historical and/or empirical research. The desirability of such research on the part of liturgiology is obvious. The many opinions that are voiced about the quality of the liturgical reforms, with their accompanying trends and liturgical movements, are not always based on thorough research and balanced judgement, but may nevertheless influence liturgical policy. The following criteria propose tools for evaluating liturgical reforms that have already taken place, and that can be taken into account in possible future liturgical reforms. 2.  Christ’s Reality of Salvation Is Transmitted Integrally, in Word and Sign As chapter III argued, the liturgy ultimately owes its title as the most important manifestation of ecclesial tradition to the fact that it makes Christ present as a living person. Tradition is, following Congar, a river that has its origin in the wellspring that is Christ,6 and that also lets that spring flow in the present. In the liturgy, the salvific encounter with the living Lord is made possible. This encounter is of a current, but also an eschatological nature. Liturgy realizes the salvation that is present in the Church in an anticipatory and human way, by making possible the ascent to the Kingdom of God. The liturgy stagnates in its function of mediating salvation if the gospel is transmitted in an inadequate manner. Christ and 4  Don E. Saliers, “Theological Foundations of Liturgical Reform,” Studia Liturgica 44 (2014): 109-117, at 110f. and 113-116. 5  Ibid., 112. 6  Congar, La Tradition et les traditions, II, 47; cf. id., La Tradition et les traditions, I, 43.

148

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

his message are handed down in both Word and sacrament, with the intention that people understand and recognize it and are able to appropriate it. In this context, the Second Vatican Council, particularly in the constitution on the liturgy, spoke of the Paschal mystery of Jesus Christ, his passion, death, and resurrection, that is present in the liturgy and in which the believer shares.7 This is the heart of every striving for reform.8 The aim, then, is that the liturgy is transparent with respect to the gospel. The process of liturgical tradition is not allowed to put anything in the way that hinders Christ’s reality of salvation from being transmitted as fully as possible. To recognize Christ and encounter Him by means of the liturgical ritual, in the midst of the celebrating community, is the intention of the liturgy. In the course of time, disruptive factors can appear that hamper this recognition or obscure important elements of it. The liturgy as tradition keeps asking after the source of that tradition. The person of Jesus Christ has, according to Kasper, a critical function with regard to historical development. In relation to the Christian, and also specifically the liturgical, tradition, He is the always greater truth, in Him God’s truth is predetermined.9 Based on that Truth, criticism and correction of the reality of the liturgical tradition is always possible. Transmitting Christ integrally in Word and sacrament is sufficient for the salvific encounter with him. The proclamation of the Word of Scripture and the elucidation of it, the celebration of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, and other liturgical signs, offer the full possibility of receiving the reality of salvation. This concerns both the versatility of what Christ gives, and also the intensity of his presence that is directed towards a renewing transformation of the human person. Liturgical reforms, then, must first of all make the countenance of Christ more visible and accessible in the liturgy. In this context, Rat­ zinger draws a comparison with the restoration of a fresco. It had been preserved from damage, but it had almost completely been overlaid with whitewash by later generations. … as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer.10 7  Sacrosanctum Concilium 5; 6; 61; 104; 107; 109; Klöckener and Kranemann, “Litur­ giereform – Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes: Systematische Auswertung,” 1097. 8  Haunerland, “Mysterium paschale,” 189-195. 9  Kasper, “Tradition als theologisches Erkenntnisprinzip,” 88f. 10  Joseph Ratzinger, “Der Geist der Liturgie: Eine Einführung” (2000), idem, Theo­ logie der Liturgie, 29-194, at 30: “das zwar unversehrt bewahrt, aber von einer späteren Übertünchung fast verdeckt war: … für die Gläubigen war sie weithin unter privaten Gebetsanleitungen und -formen verborgen”; trans.: Joseph Ratzinger, “The Spirit of the



CHAPTER VI: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LITURGICAL REFORM

149

The image of Christ in the liturgy is present there on multiple levels. It is there on an explicit, discursive level, mainly by means of the words used, which address the person partly on a rational level. It is also there on an implicit, unspoken, more emotional level, mainly by means of the media of symbols and music. And, throughout everything, it is there on a spiritual level, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, which causes a person to be moved in faith and grace to be transmitted. Each of these dimensions of the image demands a clear, untainted transmission. For each of these levels, a liturgical reform will suggest adaptations that improve the liturgical communication. Finally, as an example of a liturgical reform that was intended to strengthen the image of Christ in the liturgy, is found in the restoration of the liturgical significance of the Sunday as the celebration of Christ’s resurrection. The Council calls this day “the fundamental feast day,”11 that is called “the Lord’s day,” on which Christians “should come together, in order to commemorate the suffering, resurrection and glory of the lord Jesus, by hearing God’s Word and sharing the eucharist; and to give thanks to God ….”12 It introduces the liturgical rule that other celebrations, unless they really are of the highest importance, should not take precedence over it, in that the Sunday is the foundation and kernel of the whole liturgical year.13

In the publication of the new Roman Missal in 1970, this resulted in a “Table of liturgical days according to their order of precedence,” which makes clear that the Sundays, especially those of Advent, Lent, and the Easter season, rank higher than most solemnities and feasts. These are dropped or shifted if they fall on a Sunday.14 Liturgy,” in idem, Theology of the Liturgy: The Sacramental Foundation of Christian Existence, Collected Works 11 (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2014), 3-150, at 3. 11  Sacrosanctum Concilium 106: “Itaque dies dominica est primordialis dies festus, …”; cf. 102; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *838. 12  Sacrosanctum Concilium 106: “Hac enim die christifideles in unum convenire debent ut, verbum Dei audientes et Eucharistiam participantes, memores sint Passionis, Resurrectionis et gloriae Domini Iesu, et gratias agant Deo…”; trans.: Tanner and ­Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2,*838. 13  Sacrosanctum Concilium 106: “Aliae celebrationes, nisi revera sint maximi momenti, ipsi ne praeponantur, quippe quae sit fundamentum et nucleus totius anni liturgici”; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *838. 14  For details, see Tabula dierum liturgicorum secundum ordinem precedentiae disposita, in Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, editio typica (1970), Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1971; editio typica altera, Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1975, 110-112.

150

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

3.  A Person Can Understand and Experience the Liturgy as Being Relevant The reality of the liturgy takes place in the reality of humanity and the world. In the liturgy, faith is celebrated with body and soul, with intellect and emotion. Believers are also present at the celebration according to their concrete circumstances and identity, as woman and man, as elderly and youthful, as poor and rich. Liturgy is celebrated by the faith community in its diversity, in the various ranks it consists of, formed by and connected with the culture people live in. The human person experiences, understands, and receives divine salvation through full participation in the liturgical celebration in diverse aspects of his or her humanity. The appropriation of the liturgical tradition by people of each new generation is marked by many aspects that are of influence. It is beyond the scope of this study to do more than briefly indicate a few. This appropriation is at the same time an essential component of the process of tradition. All the discussed stagnation factors concerned this part of the process. The stagnation that occurred and occurs in the liturgy mostly takes place here, in the recognition, acceptance, and appropriation of what is handed down liturgically. This is therefore where the main goal of Vatican II’s liturgical reform, the promotion of active participation, must be realized. Each liturgical reform, then, can only succeed if appropriation is an essential part of it and is advanced by it. The two criteria that Kasper mentions as means of discerning the truth of a proclamation, a transfer, emphasize this side of the reception on the part of the believer. The first entails that a proclamation has to be accepted and believed in the Church.15 In other words: a process of tradition is not complete until what has been proclaimed has also been received and embraced. Liturgical reforms that are not, or are only barely received, even after some time, especially in the pastoral context of parishes and other faith communities, are dubious. His second criterion is that a proclamation has to be realizable and inwardly understandable in the view of the world.16 Here, the theologian emphasizes that reception cannot be a solely individual or ecclesial affair, but that the proclamation also has to be acceptable in the surrounding world and its cultures. The liturgy is not esotericism, but is about things that concern everyone and ought to be  Kasper, “Neues Licht auf die Tradition,” 175.  Ibid., 177.

15

16



CHAPTER VI: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LITURGICAL REFORM

151

recognizable by all as being relevant. It does this, not in a secret language, but in languages which can in principle reach people of all countries and cultures. Whether someone feels moved and can become open for what is being offered to him or her in the liturgy, is dependent on manifold factors. No one celebrates this liturgy in a neutral, “blank” state of mind. It is a matter of hermeneutics as to which elements influence a person’s understanding. In the discussion of the stagnation factors, it was clear that three elements were more particularly applicable: the personal, the communal, and the cultural dimensions. Another important aspect is the personality levels on which an appeal is felt. In the liturgy, there is not only and not primarily a cognitive transfer of insights taking place. The whole of the human person is addressed: physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually, as was already mentioned above. In general, there is the risk of a one-sided focus on just one of these levels. Examination of the stagnation factors showed that these primarily paid attention to stagnation on the explicit and rational level. The other side of these factors suggested that they might be able to promote different, more implicit or affectional forms of communication. On all these various levels, the liturgy wishes to be understood and to move the human person. In order to be able to be a partner in the process of liturgical tradition, initiation and formation are necessary. The liturgical means of communication, in language and sign, is not accessible just like that. Sacrosanctum Concilium places a great emphasis on the necessity of liturgical formation of the faithful, so that they truly experience what the liturgy lets them celebrate.17 In the same way, Klöckener and Kranemann argue in favor of a mediation of the liturgical reform to the local ecclesial community: “If a liturgical reform is to attain its goal and truly be received, it requires the mediation of what it intends into the contemporary ecclesial community.”18 In this context, they speak of the liturgical-spiritual formation of the parish and the believer as one of the most important pastoral tasks. Very many liturgists continue to identify this as the priority and point out how much still needs doing. This was already apparent  Sacrosanctum Concilium 19: “Liturgicam institutionem necnon actuosam fidelium participationem, internam et externam, iuxta ipsorum aetatem, condicionem, vitae genus et religiosae culturae gradum, animarum pastores sedulo ac patienter prosequantur, …” 18  Klöckener and Kranemann, “Liturgiereform – Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes: Systematische Auswertung,” 1100-1102: “Damit eine Liturgiereform ihr Ziel erreicht und wirklich rezipiert wird, bedarf es der Vermittlung ihrer Anliegen in die jeweilige kirchliche Gemeinschaft hinein.” 17

152

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

for Beauduin, who considered teaching the faithful to “pray the liturgy” as his assignment.19 Furthermore, as Pott argues, the inward experience of the liturgy, initiation, and conversion is an integral part of the liturgical reform.20 The term “conversion,” which he uses in this context, draws attention to the fact that participation in the liturgy is never self-evident. There is an openness in the human person for the mystery of God as it is proffered in the liturgy, but that same person is also marked by an inner resistance to God’s offer of salvation. The communication between God and human being always meets with difficulties in the human person him- or herself. Not being open to God’s Kingdom, which we refer to with the term “sin” or “sinfulness,” both in individual people and in the social structures they live in, forms a blockade against the celebration of the liturgy. Succinctly: reform of the liturgy requires reform of the human person. The process of liturgical formation accordingly brings with it an invitation to an inner about-turn, a conversion. What is at issue here is the permanent function of mystagogy, the introduction into the mysteries of the faithful who share in them and yet can always penetrate more deeply into them. Pott connects this term with the interiorization, the inner appropriation of the liturgy.21 This formation is not limited to imparting pieces of liturgical information, but concerns a further introduction into the mystery of God’s self-gift in Christ. A person can only be a participant in the liturgy and experience it as meaningful for themself, if this same person is inwardly formed and prepared in faith and so enabled to understand the communication of the liturgy. This strong emphasis on education may, however, call forth critical questions. It presupposes an optimistic view of humanity, which assumes that information and formation influence a person’s will, and will therefore steer his or her behavior in the desired direction. However, people do not always act on the basis of knowledge and insight, but often also let themselves be guided by circumstances and emotions. It is important to be aware of the limits of liturgical education, certainly when it is offered in a theoretical, uninvolved way. True liturgical formation, in the sense of initiation and growth in involvement, probably mainly develops through liturgical participation. The rite has a highly formative  Beauduin, Liturgy, the Life of the Church, 20, 27.  Pott, Byzantine Liturgical Reform, 82, 86-106. 21  Ibid., 88. 19

20



CHAPTER VI: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LITURGICAL REFORM

153

effect and contributes in a unique way to the growth of Christians in faith. Grillo here speaks of “the initiatic dimension of participation.” On the basis of the awareness that the liturgy is the source of our faith, we can discover in it an ongoing initiating and formative effect.22 Liturgical reform in the broad sense of the term therefore presupposes an optimal participation of the faithful. Besides the necessary formation and liturgical experience, there are other dimensions of Church life that contribute to this. In particular the pastoral and diaconal action of the Church cannot be separated from what happens liturgically but rather derives inspiration from this, while at the same time also working towards a liturgical expression. If the life of a community outside the liturgy is vigorous, this will have repercussions on the quality of the liturgy that is celebrated. The success of the liturgical reforms, as initiated by the Council, is dependent, among other things, on the vitality of ecclesial life in other aspects. An example again can be taken from the liturgical reforms as proposed by Sacrosanctum Concilium, concerning the possibility of understanding the liturgy and experiencing it as personally relevant. A separate section in the chapter on the renewal of the liturgy is dedicated to adaptations of the liturgy to the proper natures and traditions of the peoples.23 What is striking is the earnest invitation to preserve cultural elements of the various peoples, or include them in the liturgy of, for instance, initiation, matrimony, and burial of the dead.24 In the case of the liturgy of initiation, we read an incitement to “incorporate whatever means of initiation are found to be the custom among each individual people”25 and in the case of matrimony to draw up one’s own rite and “other praiseworthy customs and ceremonies … the synod is very concerned that they be preserved in their entirety,” a possibility already decreed by the Council of Trent.26 In the burial rite, two elements are emphasized: the paschal character should be  Grillo, Beyond Pius V, 59.  Sacrosanctum Concilium 37-40, coinciding with Chapter I, section D. 24  Sacrosanctum Concilium 65, 77, and 81. 25  Sacrosanctum Concilium 65: “… etiam elementa initiationis admitti liceat, quae apud unumquemque populum in usu esse reperiuntur …”; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *833. 26  Sacrosanctum Concilium 77: “… exarandi ritum proprium usibus locorum et popu­ lorum congruentem, …”; “‘Si quae provinciae … aliis laudabilibus consuetudinibus et caeremoniis’ in celebrando Matrimonii Sacramento ‘utuntur, eas omnino retineri Sancta Synodus vehementer optat’”; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *834. Cf. Concilium Tridentinum, Sessio XXIV: De reformatione matri­ monii, decr. “Tametsi,” cap. 1: “… vel aliis utatur verbis, iuxta receptum uniuscuiusque provinciae ritum” (DH 1814). 22 23

154

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

more clearly expressed and the celebration “should correspond more closely to the circumstances and traditions of individual parts of the world.”27 These measures make liturgical inculturation possible and aim to promote human reception and appropriation. 4.  The Liturgy of the Previous Generations Is the Same as the Current Liturgy In our analysis of the concept of tradition, we determined that the phenomenon “tradition” presupposes and expresses a certain identity, proper to a certain community. Tradition relates to the same body of thought and the same practice, albeit in change, but also and particularly to the same Source and the same community that lives out of that Source. This idea was applied above to the tradition of the Church and can now be further specified for the liturgical tradition. The ecclesial community is a diachronous community, for it also encompasses also its ancestry. In the same way, its liturgy, proper to the contemporary believers, is equally proper to the previous generations of Christians and to those who will follow. Such identity makes for the third criterion for sound liturgical reform. The changes that the liturgy undergoes in a reform must not affect its identity. The “remaining the same” of the liturgy in the course of time can be compared to the different stages of a human life: the child is the same as the adult. However drastically changed, he or she remains the same person.28 The liturgy as a “monument of tradition” exists in various forms within Christianity. Besides the Protestant liturgical traditions, such as the Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Evangelical, there are the older, transmitted forms of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Especially in the case of the latter two groups, the term “rites” is used. The liturgical monument of tradition is divided into a number of rites. A rite may be described concisely as a liturgical family.29 It must be kept in mind 27  Sacrosanctum Concilium 81: “Ritus exsequiarum paschalem mortis christianae indolem manifestius exprimat, atque condicionibus et traditionibus singularum regionum, etiam quoad colorem liturgicum, melius respondeat”; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *835. 28  Example by R. Cabié, cited by Whelan, “On Liturgical Tradition,” 215. 29  Ephrem Carr OSB, “Liturgical Families in the East,” in Introduction to the Liturgy, ed. Ansgar J. Chupungco, Handbook for Liturgical Studies 1 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 11-23; Gabriel Ramis, “Liturgical Families in the West,” ibid., 25-32.



CHAPTER VI: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LITURGICAL REFORM

155

here that various non-liturgical characteristics, such as canonical and theological ones, also go to make up the identity of a rite. The rites developed from certain ancient patriarchates and bishoprics. They are accordingly colored by the culture of certain countries, peoples, or regions and therefore each have their own style. In “Der Geist der Litur­ gie,” Ratzinger gives two further specifications with regard to the ­Christian liturgy. The first is that “‘rite’ means the practical arrangements made by the community, in time and space, for the basic type of worship received from God in faith …”30 The second stresses some different points, but does not differ in essentials: “[The rite] is the expression, that has become form, of ecclesiality and of the Church’s identity as a historically transcendent communion of liturgical prayer and action.”31 The issue is a concrete form of liturgy that encompasses certain times and places and is an expression of the Church. The Christian liturgy, then, is celebrated in the form of a number of rites – concrete families, or forms of Christian tradition. These are connected with the ancient traditions of apostolic proclamation; whilst also having the characteristics of the culture in which they developed. The identity of a liturgical tradition accordingly exists in the manner of a certain rite, from which it derives its rules, customs, and form. The rite is the concrete way in which the treasure of faith is handed down liturgically. Previous generations are present in the current liturgy, which is thus the expression of a liturgical community through the ages. By means of faithfulness to a rite, one can therefore state that the same liturgy is celebrated in consecutive centuries. A liturgical rite is not at the disposal of a current generation of believers. It is just as much the “property” of the previous and future generations of believers. A generation may add elements or implement renewals. Whether consciously or not, every generation leaves its mark in the liturgy. In this way, a kind of chain develops with links throughout time.32 Each generation or each era is a link in that chain. The various links are of diverse value, depending on the importance attached to the liturgical input of a certain period. 30  Ratzinger, “Der Geist der Liturgie,” 139: “‘Ritus’ ist … eine Konkrete, Zeiten und Räume übergreifende gemeinschaftliche Gestaltung des durch den Glauben geschenkten Grundtypus von Anbetung…”; trans.: Ratzinger, “The Essence of the Liturgy,” 99. 31  Ratzinger, “Der Geist der Liturgie,” 144: “Er ist Gestalt gewordene Ausdruck der Ekklesialität und der Geschichtsüberschreitende Gemeinschaftlichkeit des liturgischen Betens und Handelns”; trans.: Ratzinger, “The Essence of the Liturgy,” 103. 32  The image was coined by Joseph A. Jungmann SJ, Liturgie der christlichen Frühzeit (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1967), 13f.

156

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

Each rite has its own classical period, in which the foundations were laid for what is considered characteristic of that rite. Preceding that, however, there was a common period, roughly the first three centuries of Church history, during which time a common liturgical heritage developed. The boundaries between the rites were not yet so clear then and they influenced one another greatly.33 Each rite undoubtedly also has periods that are considered to be less fruitful, during which the liturgy was consolidated or forms of rigidity started to emerge. From the point of view of the concept of tradition, each link has its own contribution and is therefore indispensable. Liturgy, then, is essentially something encountered and received, not something composed or created. Ratzinger’s emphatic underscoring of the proposition that the term “creativity” has no place in the liturgy, however, is in need of some nuance.34 Liturgy arose from human creating. Each generation anew contributed to the whole of the liturgy of a certain rite. Much human creativity was employed in the composition of hymns and other liturgical songs, in writing sermons, in formulating prayers, translating texts, and creating religious art. Even still, it is true that no human person creates the liturgy. The ultimate liturgy is the heavenly paean, in which human beings can participate through Christ. In a constitutive sense, the liturgy is not created on earth but merely received and handed on. The human contribution to this process can be described as “co-­ creativity,” helping to shape the Creator’s work. No one constructs the liturgy or a liturgical celebration, but many in past and present certainly did contribute to the greater whole that precedes us and comes to us as tradition. For this reason, liturgy is in essence “the feast in which the great reality comes to us that we ourselves do not manufacture but receive as a gift.”35 That greatness is a divine-human reality, in which human creativity plays an important part, albeit inspired by the transmitted liturgy and led by God’s Spirit, which is the soul of the Christian tradition. Liturgical renewals take place within the framework of the transmitted liturgy of the rite. Initiatives for liturgical reform are in principle based on the liturgical rules of the rite. However, this is not an absolute precept. The boundaries between the rites are not absolute, there have 33  Anscar J. Chupungco OSB, “History of the Liturgy until the Fourth Century,” in Introduction to the Liturgy, ed. Chupungco, 95-113, at 102-113. 34  Ratzinger, “Der Geist der Liturgie,” 145. 35  Ibid.: “… das Fest, in dem das Grosse auf uns zutritt, das wir nicht selber machen, sondern eben als Geschenk bekommen”; trans.: Ratzinger, “The Essence of the Liturgy,” 144.



CHAPTER VI: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LITURGICAL REFORM

157

always been mutual influences and it is imaginable that liturgical reforms within one rite are inspired by customs within another. What is essential for this criterion, however, is that reforms proceed from the characteristics of the rite and do not create a new liturgy, separate from the rite. In this context, the role of the Church authorities also demands attention. The role of the Church authorities is part of the definition of liturgical reform. “A necessary characteristic of every liturgical reform is that it is executed by an ecclesial authority or at least is officially recognized by a sanctioning ecclesial body.”36 It is outside the competence of ecclesial authorities, such as dioceses, Pope, general chapters, or conferences of abbots, to create new liturgy, or change the liturgy so fundamentally that it no longer answers to the characteristics of the rite, thus eroding its identity. Their responsibility extends to necessary reform activities. It applies to them as much as it does to the whole of the faith community that they receive and hand on the liturgy as a form of tradition. Ratzinger correctly emphasizes that even the papacy does not have an unlimited power to change the liturgy: “The authority of the Pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of the sacred tradition.”37 Perhaps, Ratzinger suggests, in certain periods people were so preoccupied with the authority of the Pope, that little attention remained for the predefined nature of the liturgy as a form of tradition. The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and limits of this authority, which, of course, as such had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West.38 36  Klöckener and Kranemann, “Liturgiereform – Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes: Systematische Auswertung,” 1097: “Notwendiges Charakteristikum jeder ­Liturgiereform ist, das sie von einer kirchlichen Autorität durchgeführt oder wenigstens von einer sanktionierenden kirchlichen Instanz amtlich anerkannt wird.” Cf. ibid., 1090. 37  Ratzinger, “Der Geist der Liturgie,” 144: “Die Vollmacht des Papstes ist nicht unbeschränkt; sie steht im Dienst der heiligen Überlieferung”; trans.: Ratzinger, “The Essence of the Liturgy,” 103. 38  Ratzinger, “Der Geist der Liturgie,” 143: “Je stärker der Primat sich ausprägte, desto mehr musste die Frage nach Weite und Grenze dieser Vollmacht hervortreten, die freilich als solche nie reflektiert wurde. Nach dem II. Vaticanum entstand der Eindruck, der Papst könne eigentlich alles in Sachen Liturgie, vor allen wenn er im Auftrag eines ökumenischen Konzils handle. Schliesslich ging die Idee der Vorgegebenheit der Liturgie, die nicht beliebigen Machen offensteht, im öffentlichen Bewusstsein des Westens weitgehend überhaupt verloren”; trans.: Ratzinger, “The Essence of the Liturgy,” 102.

158

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

This limitation of the papal jurisdiction with regard to the liturgy of course applies even more strongly to the bishops, priests, and others who are liturgically active. 5.  The Liturgy Is Marked by a Gradual Process of Growth Tradition, in general and particularly in the liturgy, is a process of transmission from one person to another, from one generation to the next. Each receiving party receives what is transmitted in their own way and adds personal elements to it. In tradition, there is both continuity and continuous change and development. It was the nineteenth-century theologian J.A. Möhler who rediscovered the Church and its tradition, not as a static reality, but as a living, organic process.39 Congar and Kasper build on his thinking in their development of the theological concept of tradition. The analysis above showed that they pointed in the direction of a process, specifically one of transfer from generation to generation. This entails a certain growth, because each period adds elements and exerts its influence. In the same line, the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy asked that reforms should “in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”40 This concept of organic development means that changes are only opted for if it is evidently necessary or yields a great advantage; they are introduced gradually, not jerkily; they take place in a limited number of small steps and they clearly fit in and accord with the transmitted liturgy. This last thought, that in liturgical reforms one respects the existing situation as much as possible and builds on it, was discussed above under the third criterion. Here, the emphasis is on another element mentioned by Ratzinger and Reid, that is an essential characteristic of an organic process of growth: the aspect of the gradualness of the development. A certain slowness, avoiding haste in changes that are considered necessary, is normally a characteristic of the process of tradition, for the following reasons. Tradition consists first of all in faithfully handing down what one has received. This handing down cannot be without 39  Josef Rupert Geiselmann, Lebendiger Glaube aus geheiligter Überlieferung: Der Grundgedanke der Theologie Johann Adam Möhlers und der Katholischen Tübinger Schule (Freiburg i.Br., Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 21966), 345-359. 40  Sacrosanctum Concilium 23: “… ut novae formae ex formis iam exstantibus orga­ nice quodammodo crescant.”



CHAPTER VI: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LITURGICAL REFORM

159

changes, because the receiving person and his or her circumstances are always new. Out of respect for the reality to be transmitted and for the process of communication in which it is transmitted, these changes normally occur at a slow pace and to a limited extent. There are various arguments in favor of introducing liturgical reforms very gradually. We will mention four of these here. First of all, working in small steps offers the opportunity to keep assessing how changes are working out, so that the chosen course can be corrected. Drastic changes that are introduced in a short space of time carry with them the risk that valuable elements of the liturgical heritage at that moment are not recognized and are consequently lost from the liturgical tradition. Precisely because the liturgy, as a phenomenon of tradition, aims to connect earlier and later generations, a certain reservation over quick and great changes that cannot easily be reversed is necessary. Each generation of believers (and thus also each generation of liturgists) is limited by the point of view of their own time, with its presuppositions and prejudices. For this reason, it is important to make changes in small steps, not too much at one time and spread out over an extended period. Due to the traditional nature of the liturgy, an ongoing process, the term “adjust” better suits the reform of the liturgy, than the term “alter.” The second argument in favor of graduality is the large amount of scholarly work needed for a revision of the liturgy, which keeps making new knowledge and insights available to the liturgy. Not only historical, but also cultural, rituological, socio-psychological, philosophical, and theological research prove to be important in this. Here, haste is the enemy of meticulousness. Small, gradual steps can more easily be adjusted if new insights call for that. New research that is finished at a later stage can still be applied. Reforming the liturgy takes a lot of time. It may be advisable to resist the pressure to make quick changes. The complicated revisions of the liturgical books take time and patience.41 Third, the reforms need time to be appropriated and received. For most believers, the liturgical celebration is the main channel through which they come in contact with the reality of God’s salvation in Christ, in Word and sacrament. Overly rapid and drastic changes may shortcircuit the connection between faithful experience and the liturgical texts  Klöckener and Kranemann, “Liturgiereform – Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes: Systematische Auswertung,” 1099. 41

160

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

and rituals. Graduality of change suits the graduality of transformation processes in people and offers a better chance of growing along with the changes. A liturgical reform is …, due to the necessary reception of the measures of the ecclesial authorities in the partial and local Churches and in the whole people of God, a process-oriented and protracted event.42

A fourth argument concerns the rapid changes that occur in the sphere of world view and spirituality, within Christianity as well as without. If reforms are implemented too quickly, the danger exists that the liturgy will be too strongly influenced by the ideological winds of the times.43 Liturgy as a form of the process of faithful tradition should not be adapted to every spiritual trend, but remain reliable in its communication of the Gospel of the self-gift of Christ. Might there not be circumstances in which a speedy and well-organized liturgical change is desirable? Might tradition not also consist in breaks and forms of discontinuity? If the cultural paradigm changes dramatically, and along with it the human pattern of values and norms and the experience of them, is a briskly implemented and large-scale change not necessary in that case, in order to prevent the liturgical communication from coming to a complete standstill? This possibility cannot completely be ruled out. Tradition, including liturgical tradition, is not laid down ahead of time. Designating and naming tradition is a retrospective activity: a tradition is only recognized as such after the fact. No-one can determine beforehand what will later be considered part of the liturgical tradition. Even drastic and sudden changes may be considered retrospectively as necessary and right, and therefore as part of the tradition. “Tradition” is so flexible a term that we cannot set down theoretically what forms are excluded from its development. Against this, however, the criticism may be leveled that changes in tradition, again including liturgical tradition, can never be based on the analysis of a solitary moment in time or of a single generation. It is difficult to assess whether far-reaching changes to the tradition are necessary when part of that development. The idea of a liturgical tradition consists in the assumption that the treasure that is passed on can lead to spiritual e­ nrichment 42  Klöckener and Kranemann, “Liturgiereform – Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes: Systematische Auswertung,” 1099: “Eine Liturgiereform ist … wegen der nötigen Rezeption der Verfügungen der kirchlichen Autoritäten in den betroffenen Teil- und Ortskirchen und im ganzen Gottesvolk ein prozesshaftes, langfristiges Geschehen.” 43  Cf. Eph 4:14.



CHAPTER VI: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LITURGICAL REFORM

161

in new circumstances as well. To use a different image: liturgical tradition is letting the same spring flow, while liturgical reform consists in new means of drinking from it. For this reason, this criterion of graduality is appropriate. The concept of tradition, applied to the liturgy, mainly calls for the continuation of the process, including the limited and gradual changes that go with that. 6.  Four Criteria, Combined and Balanced The four evaluation criteria presented here are interdependent. Each of them is indispensable in connection with the others. Each one separately, or a few separately, apart from the others, would lead to a one-sidedness and a skewing of the liturgy. The first two criteria pertain to the divinehuman relationship, what we might call the vertical axis of tradition. The third and fourth have to do with tradition as an event taking place in time, the horizontal axis of the process of tradition. The reform in the direction of a strengthened presence of the Source, the ressourcement, cannot do without the liturgical reform that brings the liturgy up to date with an eye to human reception, the aggiornamento. This is the one vertical axis with its two poles. These two, however, also call attention to the process and the content of tradition, the horizontal axis. Exclusively emphasizing the divine side of the vertical axis results in a “fundamentalist liturgy,” without regard for the church-historical transmission or the role of the contemporary person and community. On the other hand, placing all the emphasis on the human side of this axis, on the role of the human person and his or her community and culture, questions and assumptions, runs the risk of handing down only a vague and unreliable image of the source of the liturgical tradition and the way it has flowed throughout time. In the same way a unilateral stress on the horizontal axis of tradition, the third or the fourth criterion, the identity of the liturgy throughout time, and the graduality of changes, carries the danger of “traditionalism,” that is turning the means into the end and losing sight of both the origin and the aim of the Christian liturgy. In practice, the interdependence and combination of these evaluation criteria can probably only rarely be realized. From the point of view of the theological concept of tradition all four are equally important, because each one separately, without the others, does not function properly. Historical research may reach the conclusion that in certain l­iturgical

162

PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATIONS

reforms, there was a one-sided emphasis on one or a few of these criteria. It is also quite possible that new reforms will, instead, emphasize the other ones. If we take a broad look at the whole of the liturgical reforms implemented by order of Vatican II, we get the impression that mainly the first two criteria were emphasized. There were, after all, two principal wishes guiding the reforms: focusing attention on the paschal mystery and promoting the active participation of the faithful. We recognize in this the first two evaluation criteria discussed. They are directly linked to the origin and aim of the liturgical tradition process. The other two criteria, derived from that process itself and its content, did occur in Sacrosanctum Concilium, but seem to play less of a part in the reform measures. The general intention was to make the liturgy more accessible to modern people and at the same time better represent the source, Christ. The testing of the evaluation criteria in Part Two will give an indication whether the first two did indeed play a leading part, so that the process of liturgical tradition with its graduality and the liturgical monument of tradition that ensures identity and continuity, received too little attention. It is also imaginable that in some situations the evaluation criteria might hinder one another. While all four of them are based on the essential elements of the one process of tradition, it may happen that emphasizing one is detrimental to another. Maintaining elements of the tradition or intelligibility for the participant may be considered so important, that this is detrimental to the completeness of the Christ-mystery. Conversely, one might place so strong an emphasis on the original message of Christ, that the form in which this is handed down or the participant’s horizon of understanding is no longer given its due. Where the application of multiple criteria leads to contradictory conclusions, precedence will ultimately be given to the Christological criterion.44 The theological concept of tradition as we have used it here, however, leaves no room for a one-sided application of one or few criteria. Together and balancing one another they safeguard the traditional nature of the liturgy in the multifaceted, rich sense of the word, and on this basis form the conditions for a successful liturgical reform.

 W. Kasper, too, finds such a criterion in the person of Jesus Christ, as we saw above. With regard to the Christian tradition, he is the always greater truth. 44

Part Two

Evaluation of Liturgical Reforms by Means of the Concept of Tradition Six Case Studies

Introduction In this second part of our study we will put the proposed evaluation criteria to a practical test multiple times. This is done by means of six case studies taken from the history of the liturgy, that are first presented, after which the criteria are applied. What motives were decisive for the choice for these six cases? Above all, the aim was to take them from all parts of the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eucharist, the liturgy of the hours, the sacraments, the feast days, the calendar of the saints, and the monastic liturgy represent the most important regions of liturgiology. Other factors that played a part in making our choices are, first, the diversity of the subjects chosen, so that the evaluation criteria can be tested in diverse circumstances; and, second, the limited scale of the revised rituals chosen, which must be able to be researched and presented within the scale of this study. What will be investigated is in what way the evaluation criteria can be applied in these examples. Do the six examples of liturgical reform answer to these criteria? Do they do justice to the traditional nature of the liturgy? Are the proper stagnation factors corrected? If this practical application is successful, it should be possible to conclude whether the change of the liturgical elements studied, in particular the reforms they underwent, happened in a correct manner. Our main interest in this regard is the extent to which justice was done to the traditional nature of the liturgy, whether the dynamic between the liturgy as a monument and the liturgy as remembrance was respected, and whether the derived criteria are recognizable.

Chapter VII

The Reformed Opening Rite in the Roman Missal of 1970 Introduction The first test concerns the evaluation of the liturgical reforms in a limited, well-defined section of the Ordo Missae: the introductory rite. The first part of this, consisting of the so-called prayers at the foot of the altar, was abolished when the liturgy was reformed. The introductory rite of the Mass was shortened and renewed. To understand these changes first of all, the old, preconciliar, and the new rite of the beginning of the Mass are briefly described, so that the change in question comes to the fore clearly (1). Next, the history and development of the prayers at the foot of the altar is studied (2). Then the changes in the missal of 1970 and the process whereby these came about are evaluated (3). Finally (4), the evaluation criteria developed above are applied to this liturgical reform. In both versions, attention is confined to the main lines. Details and options are only discussed insofar as they are necessary to the evaluation. 1.  The Introductory Rite The introductory rite of the Eucharist includes a number of prayers that occur in every celebration of the sacrament. They are a part of the fixed prayers of the Ordo Missae. The introductory rite is an important part of the celebration, because it sets the tone for the whole and at the same time gives the participants the opportunity to prepare for it. Since the Tridentine missal, it consisted of the following parts. The preparatory and vesting prayers that the priest says in the sacristy were originally a part of the Mass, but were later made optional.1 The Mass, now 1  Bonifaas Luykx OPraem, De oorsprong van het gewone der mis (Utrecht and Antwerpen: Het Spectrum, 1955), 7 and 27. Cf. Meyer, Eucharistie, Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, 182-208.

168

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

c­ ontinuing on in the extraordinary form of the liturgy, begins at the moment the priest reaches the steps of the altar or the altar space. After the genuflection for the Blessed Sacrament, or the bow for the altar, the celebrant then remains at the foot of the altar, at the bottom of the steps, makes the sign of the cross, and says the prayers at the foot of the altar. These consist of, successively, the antiphon Introibo, the psalm Judica (Psalm 42 [43]), the verse Adiutorium Nostrum, and the Confiteor, prayed first by the priest and subsequently by the assistant. After their respective confessions, the assistant and the priest reciprocally speak the Misereatur, after which the priest continues with the Indulgentiam, the verses Deus Tu, followed by the first greeting of the people: Dominus vobiscum. Next, while praying Aufer a nobis, he ascends the steps of the altar and kisses the altar, concluding the prayers at the foot of the altar as the first part of the introductory rite. If incense is being used this will happen now, after which the Introit and the Kyrie are prayed. Then the priest begins the Gloria, when so appointed. It is either sung or recited and next the congregation is once again greeted. The Collect is prayed as the conclusion of the introductory rite. If the Mass is being sung, the Introit and the Kyrie will already have been sung by the choir or the congregation during the prayers at the foot of the altar. The prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted in their entirety if a liturgical act, such as a procession, precedes the celebration. During Passiontide and in funeral Masses the psalm is omitted, while the antiphon is retained. Paul VI’s renewed missal introduced numerous changes in this format.2 The celebration begins after the people have gathered, populo congregato. The priest no longer remains standing at the beginning of the altar space or at the bottom of the altar steps, but genuflects before the sacrament or bows before the altar and then immediately moves towards the altar to kiss it and, if incense it being used, cense it. Once the opening hymn or Introit has ended he, standing before his seat, makes the sign of the cross, after which he spreads his hands and says the new, more elaborate greeting derived from the letters of Paul, the first option being the trinitarian text from 2 Corinthians 13:13. Then he may give a short introduction to the liturgy of the day, followed by the Confiteor prayed together, and the Misereatur. This confession takes place after the greeting of the altar and the greeting of the people, and is therefore no longer a part of the preparatory prayers of the priest and the assistant, but is spoken together with  Meyer, Eucharistie, Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, 326f.; 335f.

2



CHAPTER VII: THE REFORMED OPENING RITE

169

the congregation after the opening. After this, the Kyrie and the Gloria are sung or recited. Finally, the Collect is prayed. We observe that as a consequence of the liturgical reform, there are two striking differences. First: a major simplification has taken place. The prayers at the foot of the altar, spoken while approaching the altar, have been dropped. Second: the congregation is more elaborately greeted and addressed. The celebrant’s attention, which in the Tridentine liturgy was focused mainly on the altar as a symbol of Christ, is now primarily directed towards the faithful who are present. It is to them that his greeting, the introduction to the gospel of the day, and the call to confess sins is addressed. 2.  Origin of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar 1. History Despite its relative age the study of B. Luykx, De oorsprong van het gewone der mis,3 continues to provide a thorough overview of the history of the ordinarium, the prayers that recur in every celebration of the Eucharist, consisting of the liturgical chants and prayers that are the same in every mass, and the personal prayers of the priest. The prayers at the foot of the altar are part of these fixed prayers, that the priest prayed at certain moments during the liturgy and that served as an expression of his personal piety regarding the holiest moments of the liturgy. The papal liturgy in the city of Rome around the year 700 did not contain these texts. There was not yet any difference between the personal prayers of the celebrant and the liturgical prayers. The Ordo Romanus I does mention expressions of reverence and greetings during the entrance procession of the papal liturgy, among other things of the altar and the evangeliary, but does not allude to prayers during the procession or at the foot of the altar.4 However, when during the eighth century the Roman liturgy was introduced in the Frankish empire, on the initiative of the Carolingians, it was there supplemented with prayers and gestures that aimed to express the “pious  Luykx, De oorsprong, see n. 1.  Michel Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen-âge. II: Les textes (Ordines I-XIII) (Leuven: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1948), 82-85; Alan Griffiths, Ordo Romanus Primus: Text and Translation with Introduction and Notes, Joint Liturgical Studies 73 (­Norwich: JLS, 2012); Luykx, De oorsprong, 11; Joseph A. Jungmann SJ, Missarum Sollemnia: Eine genetische Erklärung der Römischen Messe (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 31952), 91-93. 3

4

170

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

profundity and personal experience” of the celebrant. The priest, but also the faithful, experienced the liturgy as an official, imported form of worship. The individual prayers during the Mass were first of all meant to help the priest bridge the gap between the official rite and one’s personal experience of it.5 It is a form of priestly appropriation, and therefore clericalization of the liturgy.6 The Western Ordo Missae, then, came into being under Carolingian influence. It is mainly during three important liturgical acts that fixed prayers are said: preparatory prayers before and during the beginning of the Mass, prayers during the offertory rite, and prayers surrounding communion. An important category among these prayers is the so-called apologies, “relatively long self-accusations while invoking God’s mercy.”7 They are typical of the first period of introduction of the Roman liturgy in the land of the Franks, the eighth and ninth centuries. In this oldest type of the Western Ordo Missae, the “Apology-type,” apologetic prayers are said at the three abovementioned moments of the liturgy.8 A next phase is the development of prayers that accompany and support the gestures, such as signs of the cross and bows, and so involve the priest’s personal experience more strongly in the action. They develop into a continuous sequence of fitting prayers, built into the entire course of the Mass. This second phase of the development of the ordinarium is called the “Frankish type” and was mainly disseminated in ancient Gaul.9 Here we also find the preparatory prayers that are said in the sacristy, including the psalm Miserere, and the prayers during the handwashing and while putting on the vestments. The priest utters three apologies while moving towards the altar.10 In the course of the tenth century a third phase of this development then arises, in the area of St. Gallen, Reichenau, and Mainz, called the “Rhineland type.”11 The prayers in the sacristy during handwashing, vesting, and preparation are now more elaborate. New are the prayers during the entrance procession, including the psalm Judica with the antiphon Introibo ad altare Dei, with the ancient prayer12 Aufer a nobis as the  Luykx, De oorsprong, 17.  Ibid., 14. 7  Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia, 103-106; Luykx, De oorsprong, 15. 8  Luykx, De oorsprong, 17f. 9  Ibid., 19-23. 10  Ibid., 21. 11  This discovery of Luykx is accepted by Jungmann in the third, corrected, edition of Missarum Sollemnia in 1952, 123f. 12  Already in the Sacramentarium Leonianum, see Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia, 80. 5

6



CHAPTER VII: THE REFORMED OPENING RITE

171

­conclusion.13 Having arrived at the foot of the altar, the celebrant kisses the servers, who then kiss the altar. Then comes the confession, after which the celebrant approaches the altar and kisses it, and also the evangeliary. During the hymns, the celebrant prays the same apologies noted above.14 This Rhineland type deviates markedly from the two preceding types, in that now the entire ritual course of the Mass is supported and supplemented with prayer texts. “The whole rite of the Mass has become the celebrant’s personal experience.”15 The Western ordo of the Eucharist is based on this and was indeed characterized by it for centuries. Among the main ingredients proper to this type are the preparatory psalms and vesting prayers in the sacristy and the prayers during the entrance. The origin of this ordinarium can be located in the abbey of St. Gallen, around the year 950.16 It may be considered as a good balance between the original, Roman, objective liturgy and the prayer-individualism of the Apology-type.17 During the second half of the tenth century, the influence of the Ottonic renaissance and the empire caused it to spread quickly in all directions, including Rome, which during that time was in decline. In the middle of the eleventh century, the prayers at the foot of the altar underwent further development. A Confiteor was composed from the Apologies, followed by a formula of forgiveness, the Misereatur.18 The two are placed between the psalm and the prayer Aufer a nobis. This Confiteor and its response have been a part of the order of the Mass of all Western liturgies since the twelfth century. The psalm Judica was much less prevalent and was not included in the proper liturgies of the religious orders, though it was included in the missal of the Roman curia.19 The Rhineland Ordo Missae, with its preparatory prayers, would ultimately become the Roman ordinarium. During this period it was still a free, optional act, which would not become standard until the thirteenth century.20 These texts ended up in the missal of the Roman Curia, which would be disseminated by the Franciscans and ultimately fixed as the general Western or Roman liturgy by Pope Pius V.21 In this way, they  Luykx, De oorsprong, 25; Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia, 378.  Luykx, De oorsprong, 25. 15  Ibid., 26: “Geheel de misritus is een persoonlijke belevenis geworden van de cele­ brant.” 16  Ibid., 30-32; 38. 17  Ibid., 35. 18  Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia, 386-402. 19  Ibid., 379f. 20  Ibid., 128; Luykx, De oorsprong, 42f. 21  Luykx, De oorsprong, 45; Meyer, Eucharistie, Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, 211. 13

14

172

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

developed from pious guidelines for the celebrant into a mandatory set of fixed prayers for every celebration of the Mass.22 The prayers at the foot of the altar were, during this time, sometimes prayed by the priest on the way to the altar, and sometimes alternately by the priest and the assistant at the bottom of the altar steps.23 This process was especially encouraged by the often much abbreviated entrance processions, for instance because the route from the sacristy to the altar was not long. This is also how it was established in the Tridentine missal, which from 1570 onward gained an almost universal validity in the Western Church. 2. Form and Nature of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar The liturgical execution of the prayers at the foot of the altar was largely determined by what was considered their private, priestly nature.24 Thus, from the thirteenth century onwards, the celebrant himself was also obliged to pray, in a subdued voice, the hymns that the choir sang, in particular the Introit and the Kyrie.25 These two prayers were, from that moment on, prayed immediately following the prayers at the foot of the altar, while they had already been sung earlier. The consequence of this was a reduplication and an asynchronicity of the liturgical act, which was then negated at the beginning of the Gloria. This development further deepened the separation between the communal celebration and the priestly celebration. The prayers at the foot of the altar became even more of a personal activity on the part of the priest. Luykx accordingly remarks that the prayers at the foot of the altar, like the priestly prayers during the offertory and communion, were of a private nature and were developed to support the personal piety of the celebrant, since the official liturgical texts offered few possibilities to that end. Everywhere in Northern Europe, there was a need to create more room for personal emotion and experience in the Latin liturgy. This is why in St. Gallen, the custom arose of praying these texts personally during the opening procession, possibly in a whisper or a low voice. A few centuries later, in the thirteenth century Missale Curiae, adopted and circulated by the Franciscans, these texts had become a regular part of the liturgy, though still spoken in a subdued voice, up to the sixteenth century still prayed 22  Bonifaas Luykx, “Gewone der mis,” in Liturgisch Woordenboek I (Roermond and Maaseik: Romen, 1962), 860-864, col. 862. 23  Meyer, Eucharistie, Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, 217. 24  Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia, 377-380. 25  Ibid., 427-429; 445f.



CHAPTER VII: THE REFORMED OPENING RITE

173

during the entrance procession but also more and more often at the foot of the altar.26 The development of this ordinarium thus resulted in a separation between the communal liturgy, of which the invariable and variable chants and the orations at least were a part, and which was or could be celebrated singing, and the personal prayers of the priest. The text of the psalm Judica is worded in the first person singular, and this would certainly have contributed to its individual and devotional nature. However, in contrast to most personal prayers during the offertory and communion, the prayers at the foot of the altar gained a somewhat more liturgical and communal nature. Three factors in particular brought this about. First of all, the prayers at the foot of the altar are said at a conspicuous moment, i.e. on the way to the altar, just before the priest approaches it. These prayers thus mark a break, between leaving for and arriving at the altar. Psalm 42 [43] has to do precisely with this approaching of the altar. “The altar of the New Covenant is the place where this meeting with God can be best accomplished this side of heaven.”27 It is a moment that the congregation will undoubtedly notice and can take part in. Secondly, the prayers at the foot of the altar stand out because they are said in a very particular place, at the bottom of the altar steps. They represent the approach to the altar and in this way also give the faithful a clear visual image of the preparation of the priest, as the community’s representative, for the celebration of the Eucharist. The third factor is the fact that these texts, in contrast to other private prayers of the priest, are said by the priest and the assistant in turn. This makes them somewhat less private. The server in question may in a sense be considered the representative of the faithful people. We may state, then, that due to these factors, the prayers at the foot of the altar have gradually gone from being personal prayers to more liturgical prayers. The priest’s acts reflect the step-by-step preparation of the liturgical community.28 Based on these considerations, one can question Luykx’s conclusion that because of “the private nature of the prayers  Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia, 381f.  Ibid., 380: “Der Altar des Neuen Bundes ist die Stelle, an der sich die Begegnung mit Gott im Diesseits am vollsten verwirklichen darf”; trans.: Joseph A. Jungmann SJ, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, vol. 1, trans. F.A. Brunner CSSR (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2012), 293. 28  In this spirit, in the seventeenth century the Ritus Servandus of the missal of 1570 took into account the participation of the faithful in the prayers at the foot of the altar. In the nineteenth century, Dom Guéranger proposed that the celebrant might pray the prayers at the foot of the altar together with the community. Meyer, Eucharistie, Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, 291 and 271. 26 27

174

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

at the foot of the altar, the offertory and communion prayers,” these “should fade into the background, especially during the sung Mass.”29 The three factors mentioned seem to us to be reasons to consider these prayers at the foot of the altar as dialogical prayers of the community, as has also been done with respect to, for instance, the Orate fratres, which originated in the same time period and circumstances.30 3.  Change of the Introductory Rite in a Few Steps In the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council asked for reforms that would, among other things, promote the communal nature and the clarity of the liturgy. To this end, “elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, [were] to be discarded.”31 That the liturgy is a celebration of the faith community was strikingly expressed in the new rubric at the beginning of the Ritus initiales: “When the people are gathered, the Priest approaches the altar with the ministers while the Entrance Chant is sung.”32 During the first session of the Council, fall 1962, the outline for this constitution was discussed by the Council Fathers. In the course of the discussions on art. 50, on the renewal of the Ordo Missae, a number of opinions on the prayers at the foot of the altar also came up. The records mention the wish, shared by many, of making the ritual of the Mass simpler, clearer, and shorter.33 To that end, some people proposed dropping the psalm Judica me and potentially also the Confiteor,34 while others pled to retain the prayers at the foot of the altar, to be spoken by turns with the faithful, either with or without the 42nd psalm.35 29  Luykx, “Gewone der mis,” 863: “… vanwege het privékarakter van de voetgebeden, de offerande- en communiegebeden (deze) vooral in gezongen mis, op de achtergrond moeten treden.” 30  Jungmann, Missarum Sollemnia, 124. 31  Sacrosanctum Concilium 50: “… ea omittantur quae temporum decursu duplicata fuerunt vel minus utiliter addita; …” 32  Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instau­ ratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Joannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum, iuxta typicam tertiam (2002), Midwest Theological Forum, 2007, 426: “Populo congregato, sacerdos cum ministris ad altare accedit, dum cantus ad introitum peragitur.” 33  Maurizio Barba, “Verso la definitiva formulazione dell’articolo 50 sulla riforma dell’‘Ordo Missae’,” Ephemerides Liturgicae 115 (2001): 3-34, at 7 and 16. 34  Ibid., 7, 15. 35  Ibid., 18, 20.



CHAPTER VII: THE REFORMED OPENING RITE

175

While the Council was still going on, over nine months after the promulgation of the constitution on the liturgy, on September 26, 1964, the instruction Inter oecumenici was published on the initiative of the Council for Liturgical Reform. This document announced a number of decisions regarding liturgical reforms. These included a decision on the prayers at the foot of the altar, in which two matters were regulated: the psalm Judica would no longer be prayed, and the prayers at the foot of the altar were to be omitted if immediately preceded by another liturgical act.36 This seemed to mean that the prayers at the foot of the altar would be retained in an abbreviated form, with the abovementioned prayers and verses, including the antiphon Introibo and the Confiteor.37 There were thirty study groups, coeti, instituted to support the Consilium, each responsible for preparing a section of the total reform.38 Coetus X, with J. Wagner as its relator, devoted itself to the revision of the Ordo Missae.39 During its first meeting, on April 17, 1964, it was already determined that the prayers at the foot of the altar should be shortened and simplified.40 In the meantime, the discussions in Coetus X made clear that the majority wished to do away with the prayers at the foot of the altar. One of the members, A. Franquesa, phrased it as follows: “The prayers at the foot of the altar with the Confiteor had, after all, never been a part of the Mass and everyone was in fact in favor of their abolition.”41 Or, in the words of Outline 16, discussed in June 1964: Even though in read, dialogued Masses the prayers at the foot of the altar are currently often recited by the celebrant in union with the congregation, they have up to this point nevertheless been considered by the liturgy not as a part for the people but rather as quasi private  Congregatio de Cultu Divino, “Inter oecumenici,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964): 877-900. Cf. Meyer, Eucharistie, Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, 311. 37  This omission of the psalm, while retaining the Confiteor and the preceding verses Introibo and Adiutorium nostrum, was already common practice in Passiontide and during Requiem Masses, and in 1964 became common practice for five years. The Dutch translation of Missarum Sollemnia dating from 1966 mentions this change: Joseph A. Jungmann SJ, Missarum Sollemnia (Kasterlee: De Vroente, 1966), 288. 38  Marini, A Challenging Reform, 117-132, speaks of twenty-six regular and four special study groups. 39  Ibid., 121-127 40  Maurizio Barba, La riforma dell’ ‘Ordo Missae’: Il percorso storico-redazionale dei riti d’ingresso, di offertorio e di communione (Rome: CLV, 2008), 206; Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, 339. Bugnini’s interesting characterization of this study group’s task is worth quoting: “On April 17, 1964, a sturdy, powerful machinery was set in motion that in five years’ time would bring the ‘new’ Mass” (341). 41  A.M. Franquesa OSB, “Hoe is de nieuwe Ordo Missae tot stand gekomen?,” Tijdschrift voor Liturgie 55 (1971): 5-24, at 13. 36

176

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

prayers of the celebrant and his assistants, … For this reason it is logical to omit them in the renewal of the Mass, in order to accent the entrance hymn with more clarity and weight.42

In the Ordo Missae that was published on January 27, 1965, one can see that to begin with, a limited form of the prayers at the foot of the altar was retained, omitting Psalm 42 [43].43 This was of course a provisional publication, in advance of the complete revision of the Roman Missal. The study group was not happy with this state of affairs. Outline 170, dated May 1966, clearly stated the problem: the combination of entrance chant sung by the choir and/or the congregation and the prayers at the foot of the altar said by the priest and his assistant was considered troublesome and unsatisfactory. There are two possibilities: either omit one of the elements, entrance hymn or prayers at the foot of the altar, or retain a part of said prayers, the penitential act, as an action of the whole congregation. The report continues: Il “Consilium” ha optato per questa secunda soluzione; “the ‘Consilium’ has opted for this second solution.”44 With this decision, the question of the prayers at the foot of the altar was reduced to that of the penitential act. How would it be worded and what place would it be given? The reports make no mention of a vote on the abolition of the prayers at the foot of the altar. All the members apparently agreed on this. The motives that underlay this decision are scattered throughout the various reports. These are the following. First, they had always been the priest’s personal prayers and therefore did not belong to the liturgy in the strict sense. Moreover, it no longer fit in with the new liturgical ideas that the priest said these prayers while in the meantime the Introit and the Kyrie were being sung. Second, the Council wanted to promote the active participation of the faithful and the communal nature of the celebration. If one assumes that the faith community is the actual subject of the liturgy, these priestly prayers do not fit in with this. Third, the motive of the greater emphasis on the liturgy of the Word also played a part. Scripture and Table would count as two elements of equal value, whereas the prayers at the foot of the altar, with their focus on the altar, were more suited to a time when the liturgy of the Word was considered  Barba, La riforma dell’ ‘Ordo Missae’, 206: “Preces ad gradus, quamquam nunc saepius in missis lectis dialogatis celebrante una cum tota congregatione recitantur, tamen a liturgia usque adhuc non ut partes populi, sed potius preces quasi privatae celebrantis eiusque assistentiae habentur, … Proinde logicum esset in instauratione missae eas opprimere ut clarius graviorque fieret cantus ad introitum.” 43  Congregatio de Cultu Divino, “Ordo Missae,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965): 408f. 44  Barba, La riforma dell’ ‘Ordo Missae’, 209. 42



CHAPTER VII: THE REFORMED OPENING RITE

177

the “Mass of the Catechumens” and all emphasis was placed on the Eucharist. Fourthly, the introductory rites were felt to be too long, too overcrowded. It was important to achieve a shortening. On May 4, 1967, a second instruction was published by the Council for Liturgical Reform, with the title Tres abhinc annos. This document again contained a number of changes to the liturgy, based, according to the introduction, on proposals made by bishops from around the world, as a reaction to the first reforms. The prayers at the foot of the altar are not referred to in this document, except for a brief mention of the altar kiss. This reads: “The celebrant kisses the altar only: at the beginning of Mass, while saying the Oramus te Domine, or on going to the altar, if the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted; at the end of Mass …”45 This sentence, with which most kisses of the altar in the ritual of the Mass are abolished, leaves two options open with regard to the prayers at the foot of the altar. Either they are said, in which case the altar is kissed during the prayer in question, or they are omitted, in which case the celebrant kisses the altar when he has approached it. This phrasing could potentially be read as a cautious announcement of the complete abolition of the prayers at the foot of the altar. Less than two years later, in Pope Paul VI’s apostolic constitution Missale Romanum, dated April 3, 1969, was mentioned that the penitential rite was among the reinstated elements in the new Ordo Missae.46 When the latter was published a few days later, it became clear that the introductory rite had undergone drastic changes and that all that remained of the prayers at the foot of the altar was the kissing of the altar and a Confiteor, to be prayed together by the whole congregation. From 1966 to 1969, Coetus X had extensive discussions on the precise text and placement of this communal penitential act and the admonitio preceding it, and on its relation to the Kyrie. The prayers at the foot of the altar, however, were no longer a point of discussion. This process shows that the prayers at the foot of the altar were abolished in two phases. The first, soon after the Council in 1965, was the 45  Congregatio de Cultu Divino, “Tres abhinc annos,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 59 (1967): 442-448, at 445: “Celebrans osculatur altare solummodo initio Missae, cum dicit orationem Oramus te, Domine; aut cum ad altare accedit, si preces ad gradus altaris ommittuntur; et in fine Missae…” 46  “Huc accedit quod restituuntur … ad pristinam Sanctorum Patrum normam nonnula quae temporum iniuria deciderunt, cuius generis sunt Homilia, et Oratio universalis seu Oratio Fidelium, et ritus paenitentialis, seu reconciliationis cum Deo et cum fratribus, initio Missae peragendus, …,” Paul VI, “Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 61 (1969): 217-222, at 220.

178

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

removal of Psalm 42 [43]. The second, at the publication of the new Ordo Missae in 1969, was the abolition of the prayers at the foot of the altar, with the exception of the penitential act, which from that point onward would be spoken together with the faithful. The kissing of the altar, which used to be the closing of the approach to the altar, is retained though, now immediately at the beginning. At an early stage, Coetus X had already concluded that the prayers at the foot of the altar did not fit in with the renewed order of the Mass, with the exception of the element of the penitential act, which subsequently became the focus of attention. Which stagnation factors did the reformers mean to combat by abolishing the prayers at the foot of the altar? The arguments used pointed to the fact that these were priestly prayers, to the idea that they weighed down and prolonged the opening of the celebration, and to the circumstance that the symbolism of these prayers was no longer understood. In other words, the concern was with the second, third, and fifth stagnation factors. 4.  Evaluation of the Changes The prayers at the foot of the altar were abolished in two phases, while of the rest of the introductory rite, the Kyrie, the Gloria, and the Collect Prayer were retained. These prayers and chants were supplemented with a new greeting of the faithful, the option of introducing them to the theme of the day’s Scripture readings, and a call to confess one’s sins in order to be able to celebrate the Eucharist in a worthy manner. Instead of the phased approaching of the altar, we now see a strong focus on the faithful that have congregated in the church for the celebration. The gradual nearing of the altar in prayer, following on the entrance procession, has made way for the opening chant, followed by a greeting of the faithful and a communal preparation. From a more mystical event, the introductory rite has turned into a mainly communal event. We will now evaluate this change, making use of the four proposed evaluation criteria, in each case asking to what extent the liturgical reform described answers the criterion in question. 1. Is Christ’s Reality of Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy? The first evaluation criterion concerns the degree and manner in which Christ is transmitted in word and sign. The prayers at the foot of the altar are not a liturgical moment of preaching or sacramental celebration.



CHAPTER VII: THE REFORMED OPENING RITE

179

Accordingly, we cannot expect that making Christ present is a central factor here. The name of Christ is in fact hardly mentioned. Only the trinitarian formula in the sign of the cross and the Gloria Patri, the close of the prayer Aufer a nobis, and, following the prayers at the foot of the altar, more explicitly the Kyrie and the Gloria, mention the Son or Christ. They presuppose a Christian context, the presence of Christ whom the believer addresses and through whom she or he prays. They do not, however, explicitly present the name of Christ, as the words of greeting in the new Ordo Missae do. In more hidden ways, however, the prayers at the foot of the altar do indicate the aim of the ritual movement. In the psalm, one prays for God’s light and truth; “they have conducted me and brought me unto Thy holy mount, and into Thy tabernacles.” Immediately thereafter comes the expression Introibo ad altare Dei which occurs a total of three times and plays a conspicuous part. The text of the psalm testifies to all sorts of difficulties in the life of the one praying, but at the same time of ascending to God’s altar in confidence and in the hope of finding justice and salvation there. The prayers of acknowledgement of guilt and forgiveness that follow, also seem to purpose the purification of the heart of the one praying in order to make an approach to the altar possible. In the context of the liturgy, both the “holy mount” and the “tabernacles,” as well as “the altar of God” from the psalm, pertain to the factual, tangible altar that the priest and assistants are approaching at that moment. The central place of the altar in the psalm and the accompanying ritual raises the question what the altar stands for, what it symbolizes. In the Christian liturgy, the altar is an important symbol of Christ. The priest and assistants approaching the altar see in it a representation of the person of Christ, the sacrifice of his life, the possibility of communion with him. The altar points to Christ and aims to make the ritual encounter with him possible. All these prayers while heading towards the altar are of a preparatory nature, they want to make the human person and the congregation “suitable” for celebrating the encounter with Christ in proclamation and Eucharist, as these will take place at or near the altar. This expression, “suitable,” or “competent,” “prepared,” in Latin, aptus, can be found in the new Ordo Missae in the call to repentance introducing the penitential act: Fratres, agnoscamus peccata nostra, ut apti simus ad sacra mysteria celebranda.47 In the new English translation, this  Missale Romanum, iuxta typicam tertiam (2002), 426.

47

180

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

is translated as: “Brothers and sisters, let us acknowledge our sins, and so prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries.”48 This preparing of the faithful for the celebration of the Eucharist is what the prayers at the foot of the altar intend to accomplish. They do this by repeatedly asking for help, forgiveness, mercy, salvation, answer to one’s prayer. The oldest element of the prayers at the foot of the altar, the prayer Aufer a nobis, gives a good summary of this trend. In translation it reads as follows: “Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord; that with pure minds we may be made worthy to enter into the Holy of Holies. Through Christ our Lord.” Here, instead of the altar, mention is made of the Sancta sanctorum, which again refers to the altar as a symbol of Christ. In these words, moreover, the sanctity of the altar is emphasized, the awe-inspiring nature of the place where God wants to let himself be encountered in Christ. The desire to ascend to the place of divine encounter is mixed with the awareness of sin and trepidation before the sacred. A comparison with the renewed liturgy of the introductory rites, according to the missal of 1970, shows us that the series of prayers at the foot of the altar has been reduced to a penitential act prayed by all simultaneously, for which the missal gives a few versions, the invitation to this, and the formula “May the almighty God have mercy on us …” We can consider this unit of text as a concise summary of what recurred several times in different words in the prayers at the foot of the altar, the admission of one’s own fault and the request for and proclamation of forgiveness. We ascertain, however, that the dynamics of heading towards a destination, the encounter with Christ, and the symbolic designation of that destination in the altar, are not present here, not even in an abridged form. The entrance procession of the celebrants and assistants during the entrance chant may, however, be interpreted in this direction. The approach to the altar itself, though, does not have any special emphasis here. The person of Christ is also more explicitly mentioned in the greetings proposed, whereby in the first option offered, Christ is even the first one mentioned. The priest makes a choice and speaks these words immediately after the sign of the cross. The liturgical greeting places the faithful in the presence of the Lord and 48  The Roman Missal, renewed by decree of the most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and revised at the direction of Pope John Paul II. English trans. 3th Typical Edition for use in the Dioceses of the USA, 2011, 515 http://www.ldysinger.com/@magist/1978_SCDW/2011_roman_missal/ THE%20ROMAN%20MISSAL-bookmarked.pdf (accessed 7 July 2021).



CHAPTER VII: THE REFORMED OPENING RITE

181

is a blessing on behalf of God.49 With regard to position of the priest in the liturgical space: he of course turns towards the faithful. He is after all greeting them, offering an introduction, and inviting them to acknowledge sins. After the formula of forgiveness, however, come hymns and prayers that are directed to God, during which the priest may optionally turn to the east. These remaining texts of the introductory rites that come after the penitential act, the Kyrie, the Gloria, and the collect prayer, like the sign of the cross at the beginning, correspond to the older form and thus offer no opportunity to evaluate a change. To summarize: while in the old prayers at the foot of the altar Christ is barely mentioned, he is nevertheless indicated in the symbols of the holy mount, the altar, and the holy of holies as the destination of the ascent that the priest and the congregation are making. Christ’s reality of salvation is made present as something that can be encountered and received. The believer is enabled to prepare for this and share in the inner process of ascent. This focus on Christ in the form of a process is lacking in the new rite. There, the acknowledgment of sin and the request for forgiveness are expressed once, concisely, in the Confiteor, followed by the Misereatur. In the greeting preceding this, He is expressly mentioned as the Host of the celebration, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The priest proclaims to the congregation that it may know the Lord to be present in its midst. In the short introduction as well, the priest may refer to the words and deeds of Christ as they come to the fore in this celebration. On the basis of the first evaluation criterion, we may state that both forms of the introductory rite represent and “proffer” Christ. The old prayers at the foot of the altar do this in a hidden way, by means of metaphors, and in a process-based, dynamic way, as a mystical ascent to the encounter with Christ. The new, reformed introductory rite does this in a simpler, clearer, and more static way. Here, Christ is not held up as the hidden destination of our journey, but as the present Lord greeting his gathered people. The liturgical reform thus answers the first criterion. The renewed liturgy explicitly makes Christ present. However, it has changed the way that Christ is presented in the introductory rite: no longer as the hidden destination of a path traveled in several phases, but as the one who from the beginning is expressly present and, through the person of the priest, greets and addresses the congregation.  Meyer, Eucharistie, Geschichte, Theologie, Pastoral, 217.

49

182

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant? The second evaluation criterion examines the effect of the liturgical reform on the celebrating believers. Do the changes to the rite help them in their active participation and in the appropriation of the mystery of faith being celebrated? Does it aid them to better experience the liturgy being relevant to their lives? The introductory rites have the character of a beginning, introduction, and preparation. Their purpose is to ensure that the faithful who come together as one, establish communion and dispose themselves to listen properly to God’s word and to celebrate the Eucharist worthily.50

These liturgical acts at the beginning of the celebration accordingly have a special relationship with this second criterion: they are focused on the believers who are present and aim to help them understand the preaching of God’s Word and celebrate the Eucharist well. The application of this evaluation criterion raises the question whether the renewed introductory rite succeeds in this task and in particular whether it helps a person to understand the liturgy and appropriate and experience as relevant what is offered. On what points do the various parts of the introductory rites aid the person celebrating the liturgy? Of the many factors discussed in this evaluation criterion, to the fore here are three that, play a part in this case. These are first of all: information and formation; second: moral and spiritual conversion; and third: rational and affectional communication. First, we ask ourselves whether the new introductory rite contributes to the necessary information and formation of the faithful present, that they might properly experience this celebration. The answer to this can be affirmative. The entrance chant already provides thoughts and feelings that introduce one and lets one experience community. Next, the congregation is clearly addressed and greeted in Christ’s name. Something is (usually) told them about the content of the liturgical celebration in question, so that they are informed  Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, C. II.III.A, nr. 46: “… characterem habent exordii, introductionis et praeparationis. Finis eorum est, ut fideles in unum convenientes communionem constituant et recte ad verbum Dei audiendum digneque Eucharistiam celebrandam sese disponant.” English trans.: General Instruction of the Roman Missal (Third Typical Edition) 2002, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc.: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html (accessed 6 July 2021). 50



CHAPTER VII: THE REFORMED OPENING RITE

183

about it. Moral and spiritual conversion is a prerequisite for a person to open him- or herself to the encounter with Christ. The invitation to acknowledge sins, the silence for the examination of conscience, and the general confession that follow in the ritual, aim to facilitate such a conversion. The two hymns and the prayer that follow help the person to focus his or her attention and heart on Christ and so to prepare for the encounter in word and sacrament. In the process of communication taking place here, there are both rational and affectional moments, the former mainly during the introduction, the latter during the penitential act and the hymns. The participating faithful, then, receive the necessary information and formation, they are aided in their inner conversion, and they experience communication on both an affectional and a rational level. The renewed introductory rite, therefore, seems to answer the second criterion. In comparison, the prayers at the foot of the altar of the old rite give the impression that as far as communication goes, the emphases are different. There is hardly any rational communication. The psalm and the prayers use metaphors that do not easily yield their meaning. The actions and the prayers focused on the altar point to an instinctive process of approaching, based on desire and attraction, while at the same time there seems to be diffidence. The request for forgiveness, repeated multiple times, at least gives the impression that forgiveness is not automatic and that the human being continues to fall short before the mystery of God. The conversion that is wished for appears in these texts as a process that keeps starting over again. On a rational level this may be confusing, while on a more instinctive level it may enhance the awareness of the mysterious, the sacred and intangible. The encounter with Christ is not something self-evident or commonplace, but a mystery. The preparation for this will itself necessarily contain an element that helps the person to transcend what is easily accessible and one-dimensional, and become receptive for divine reality. Judging by this example, the renewed liturgy seems to presuppose a human person who gathers information and mainly communicates rationally; we see a positive and clear idea of humanity. The older introductory rite testifies to a more affectional or instinctive process, in which the irrational and darker sides of the human person also have their place. Thus it can be concluded that the introductory rite of the renewed liturgy contributes to a person being able to understand the celebration and experience it as being relevant to him or her. At the same time, judging by this second criterion, the possibility of a more affectional approach to divine-human communication has been lost in the revised introductory rite.

184

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy? In the third criterion, the question is whether the abolition of the prayers at the foot of the altar is so drastic a change, that the liturgy of the Eucharist according to the Roman rite has been changed or affected in its essence. Do the prayers at the foot of the altar belong to the characteristics that are defining for the identity of this liturgy? Selecting such characteristics is no easy matter. Historical arguments, stating that what is oldest is most essential, do not stand up. Nor do arguments of authority, that take as a measure the ecclesial body that introduced the element in question, work anymore, once something has become a common custom. In each time period and in many different ways, the liturgy as tradition may undergo new developments and incorporate new elements. There are plenty of examples available of liturgical customs, texts, and feasts that arose late in time, even in the twentieth century, and nevertheless survived the reforms. For each instance of a liturgical element, an assessment will have to be made with regard to content, asking after its intrinsic value and significance. The decisive argument in the abolition of the prayers at the foot of the altar is the proposition that they belong to the category of private, priestly prayers and are therefore not essential to the liturgy as a communal celebration.51 The Council expressly asked for a simplification of the rites, leaving out “duplications which have come in over the course of time …, as should the less useful accretions.”52 These additions include the many private, priestly prayers seen in the ancient form of the Latin Mass. In the novus ordo their number has been greatly decreased, though they have not disappeared completely, as for instance the prayers In spiritu humilitatis, during the offertory, and Domine Jesu Christe, preceding communion, show. According to the reformers, these prayers of priestly piety apparently truly belong to the liturgy. These examples make clear that it is not possible to make an absolute distinction between devotional and liturgical prayers. The question is, moreover, whether the prayers at the foot of the altar should be considered private, priestly prayers. By adopting from them 51  Franquesa phrases it thus, as cited earlier: “The prayers at the foot of the altar with the Confiteor had, after all, never been a part of the Mass and everyone was in fact in favor of their abolition,” in Franquesa, “Hoe is de nieuwe Ordo Missae tot stand gekomen?,” 13. 52  Sacrosanctum Concilium 50; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *831.



CHAPTER VII: THE REFORMED OPENING RITE

185

the penitential act, a single time and shortened, and giving this a place in the new introductory rite as a communal prayer, the reformers have now given what was originally a priestly apologetic a role in the common preparation for the celebration of word and Eucharist. This is an acknowledgement of its value and usefulness for the liturgical congregation. Does this mean that the other texts and acts were not felt to be useful, on the grounds of being too exclusively priestly? The three arguments mentioned above speak for understanding these texts and acts as communal prayers as well: the moment, the place, and the manner in which they are performed point to this. Although they originated as devotional prayers of the priest, in our view they have, from the thirteenth century onwards, gradually come to function more and more as liturgical prayers for approaching the sacred, and they became such completely when, in the sixteenth century, they were included in Pius V’s missal. What is the underlying reason for this development of prayers of priestly preparation during the entrance, into a “ritual of ascent” focused on the altar? Apparently there was a need for a ritual in which the approach to the sacred was portrayed. The whole of the prayers at the foot of the altar, as it had grown and developed, met this demand. The human, especially psychological and religious, need to prepare oneself gradually, to approach step by step and be able to grow into entering into the sacred, found its answer in the rite of the prayers at the foot of the altar. This does not mean that these prayers were always experienced in this way. They were mainly seen as a priestly ritual, which usually did not succeed in performing this ascent to the altar as something communal, letting it be experienced as such. The philosopher Pickstock described the introductory rite of the Tridentine Mass as a symbolic unity that portrays the ascent to transcendent reality. Among the characteristics she mentions is the fact that as to content, the prayers include many repetitions and keep starting over, especially in the psalm and accompanying antiphon.53 Because of the necessity of continually beginning anew, this repetition seems to express a kind of impossibility of reaching the altar, image of the heavenly lit The objections to Pickstock’s approach in Baldovin, Reforming the Liturgy, 23-26 have to do with, among other things, the fact that she ignores the historical diversity of and idealizes “the” Medieval liturgy, and that she plays with the language and the believers’ unfamiliarity with these prayers. On crucial points, however, he acknowledges the value of her insights: “Pickstock is also clearly on the right track in suggesting that a certain linear rationality has informed the contemporary liturgy of the Roman Rite Eucharist …” (26). 53

186

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

urgy. The person who is praying keeps starting over. Liturgy is apparently something one has to do in order to be able to celebrate liturgy. … the liturgy of our text is always about to begin … as a necessarily deferred anticipation of the heavenly worship towards which we strive. Our liturgy in time can only be the liturgy we render in order to be able to render liturgy.54

In order to be able to reach the altar of God’s presence, we have to be there already. The Introibo of the psalm refers both to the intention of going and to the arrival, and also to entering. At the same time, the one praying has to say this over and over again.55 This is how the inner contradiction of the liturgy, being simultaneously on earth and in heaven, is phrased. Pickstock argues further that the repetitions later on in the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Aufer a nobis and the Oramus te, and afterwards in the Kyrie and the Gloria, keep asking for cleansing, forgiveness, and mercy. We are dealing with a paradox of on the one hand needing to ask for cleansing and on the other hand being cleansed by the acknowledgement of needing to ask for it. Our momentary attainment of exaltation is indistinguishable from a moment of supposedly “preparatory” purification, since the condition for admission into the divine presence is to re-admit that we require purging. This admission being made, we discover that we are already within the place of purity, and that our travelling through time is already the offering of ourselves to God.56

Her argument suggests the complex and meaningful part that this traditional rite of preparation plays, in which both elements are expressed at the same time: the necessity of embarking again and again towards the sacred, and at the same time the realization of having already reached it. Seen in this light, the prayers at the foot of the altar are not an antiquated relic but a vital part of the liturgy, representing the ungraspable entrance into the realm of God. The prayers at the foot of the altar do not belong to the core elements of the liturgy, but they are a preparatory ritual of great religious and psychological significance. Only the Confiteor and the kissing of the altar, in reversed order, have been retained as separate elements. Their specific dynamic has disappeared. A valuable part of the Mass has been removed, leading to damage to its structure as it had developed. The  Pickstock, After Writing, 183.  Ibid., 185. 56  Ibid., 189. 54 55



CHAPTER VII: THE REFORMED OPENING RITE

187

liturgical reform rightly aimed to bring the congregation into the picture as the subject of the liturgy, but let this happen at the expense of a mystical movement that was characteristic of the prayers at the foot of the altar. With regard to this third criterion, should not the reformers have also reformed the prayers at the foot of the altar? Perhaps they did not function properly, but by removing them something of the communicative potential of the liturgy was lost. Would it not have been advisable to reshape these prayers, as part of the liturgical monument of tradition, in changed circumstances? 4. Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development? This fourth criterion concerns the time span in which the reform of the prayers at the foot of the altar came about. In the clarification of the criteria, a gradual process was seen to be an essential prerequisite for every liturgical reform. Can the change in the introductory rite, the abolition of the prayers at the foot of the altar, be called gradual? As we have already seen, this liturgical reform took place in the course of five years, between 1965 and 1969. It occurred in two phases: first the retention of the shortened prayers at the foot of the altar, without the psalm, and later the complete removal of them and the insertion of the Confiteor and the kissing of the altar at different moments. We also saw that the prayers at the foot of the altar were not well thought of. They were considered to be private prayers of the celebrant and it was known that outside of the Tridentine missal there were numerous Western rites that had never known them in this form. Considering the Council’s desire for simplicity and clarity and the emphasis on the communal nature of the liturgy, it seemed a proper and not very drastic measure to abolish this rite. Nevertheless, some critical questions should be asked regarding this decision. At issue was in fact a liturgical ritual, the primal form of which is a thousand years old and that for at least five hundred years was executed as an integral part of the liturgy. Moreover, it is a preparatory ritual with a special anthropological and mystical significance. As introductory rite, it is vital to the image of the whole of the Eucharist: the beginning of the ceremony sets the tone and should therefore be composed with great care. The change that was being considered and was factually implemented was drastic: not only a shortening, as was initially proposed, but an abolition, reusing two of its elements. These considerations might have led to taking a less rigorous step and trying this out

188

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

for a longer period. An example of such a step would be to perform the (possibly shortened) prayers at the foot of the altar as community prayer. The faithful could then, after the entrance hymn, speak the verses, alternating with the priest who, together with his assistants, is facing the altar. After this would come the Kyrie and the Gloria, followed by the Collect prayer. There would be various options for greeting the faithful. In actual fact, the beginning of the ritual of the Eucharist was changed twice within a few years. Liturgically, pastorally, and psychologically this does not seem to be a proper approach. With regard to the fourth criterion, then, the reform of the introductory rite was insufficiently gradual. Conclusion The question dealt with in this section is the following: does the renewed introductory rite of the Eucharist answer the four evaluation criteria proposed? We have described the changes, particularly in the prayers at the foot of the altar, and subsequently tested them against the criteria. In all four cases, the question could be posed and answered in a meaningful way; the first two led to a balanced, predominantly positive answer, whereas the third and the fourth gave rise to a more or less negative answer. In conformity with the two central aims of the Council, aggiornamento and ressourcement, both human appropriation and transmission of the Source, the presence of Christ, seem to come out reasonably well to quite well. The other two criteria are derived from liturgical tradition as a monument, in which the identity of a certain liturgical rite is expressed. Here the criticism was decidedly more grave. The gradualness of the change and the identity of the liturgy were insufficiently respected, causing the liturgical monument of tradition to be damaged. Looking at the four results together and in correlation with one another, the conclusion is clear: this liturgical reform does not meet the standard of quality of liturgy as a form of tradition.

Chapter VIII

The Reform of the Liturgy of the Hours: Compline Introduction In chapter IV of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council decided to reform the liturgy of the hours. There were three basic principles for this reform. The Council wished to strive for the application of the proper time of day for praying each office, the veritas horarum,1 for a more spiritual and heartfelt praying of the liturgy of the hours,2 and for it to be prayed more communally.3 In order to make these aims attainable, a shortening and simplification was deemed necessary. At the publication of Liturgia Horarum in 1971, it became clear that the liturgy of the hours had been drastically reformed.4 One of the most striking changes was that the psalms were no longer distributed over one week, but over four. For the first time, next to the Old Testament canticles in Lauds, New Testament canticles were included in the psalmody of Vespers. Furthermore, the office of Prime was suppressed, the possibility was created to choose one of the other three minor hours, Terce, Sext, and Nones, as hora media, and Matins was extensively shortened and transformed into an Office of Readings that can be prayed at any hour of the day.5 1  Sacrosanctum Concilium 88: “Cum sanctificatio diei sit finis Officii, cursus Horarum traditus ita instauretur ut Horis veritas temporis, quantum fieri potest, reddatur, …” 2  Sacrosanctum Concilium 90: “… obsecrantur in Domino sacerdotes aliique omnes divinum Officium participantes, ut in eo persolvendo mens concordet voci; ad quod melius assequendum, liturgicam et biblicam, praecipue psalmorum, institutionem sibi uberiorem comparent.” 3  Sacrosanctum Concilium 100: “Curent animarum pastores ut Horae praecipuae … in ecclesia communiter celebrentur. Commendatur ut et ipsi laici recitent Officium divinum, vel cum sacerdotibus, vel inter se congregati, quin immo unusquisque solus.” 4  Officium Divinum ex decreto sacrosancti oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, Liturgia Horarum iuxta ritum Romanum, editio typica, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1971 (101977), I, II, III and IV. 5  Sacrosanctum Concilium 89.

190

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Compline, called in Latin the completorium, which is the focus of this case study, was extensively simplified. The text of the Constitution had asked for this office to be ordered in such a way that it was a suitable prayer for the end of the day.6 The reforms that this smallest of the hours underwent, are the subject of study in this chapter. In this context attention is on the liturgical ritual, while other aspects, such as its theological significance and the spiritual perception of this form of prayer, will largely be left out of consideration. As with the previous case, the chapter begins with a succinct overview of the history of the Christian liturgy of the hours, with particular attention for the place and role of Compline therein (1). Next, the reforms introduced in this office are listed and discussed (2). In the third section, the test with the four evaluation criteria is performed (3). 1.  Brief Overview of the History of the Liturgy of the Hours The history of the Christian liturgy of the hours begins in New Testament times. There, we read that the apostles went to the temple to pray. The Jewish people of Jesus’s day, like today, had probably three daily times of prayer, when a prayer was recited at home, in the temple, or in the synagogue: between sunrise and the third hour, a midday prayer, and an evening prayer.7 These prayer times are thought to be derived from the hours of the sacrifices in the temple. After the fall of Jerusalem and the temple, the daily prayers, in a sense, replaced the incense and animal offerings in the temple. As Jews, the apostles and many other Christians in the early Church probably participated in the Jewish practice of prayer and the accompanying hours.8 As concrete moments of prayer for the apostles, the book of the Acts mentions the third hour in Acts 2:15, the sixth hour in Acts 10:9, and the ninth hour in Acts 3:1, 10:3, and 10:30, times that may 6  Sacrosanctum Concilium 89,b: “Completorium ita instruatur, ut fini diei apte conveniat.” 7  Rubén Leikam OSB, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the First Four Centuries,” in Liturgical Time and Space, ed. Anscar J. Chupungco, Handbook for Liturgical Studies 5 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 3-28, at 5f.; Paul F. Bradshaw, Daily Prayer in the Early Church: A Study of the Origin and the Early Development of the Divine Office (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 22008), 2-9; The Authorized Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth, trans. Simeon Singer (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode Ltd, 1962), 1, 99 and 115. 8  Robert F. Taft SJ, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1985), 9.



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

191

refer to the three Jewish prayer times.9 Besides this, there were other daily prayers, connected with one’s own group or family, or with the meal, and also the prayer in the night (Acts 12:12).10 In the early Christian Didache, dating from the first century, the commandment is given to pray the Lord’s Prayer three times a day.11 This prayer is also thematically akin to the Jewish Amidah, of which the Talmud says that it is prayed three times a day.12 Although it is tempting to trace the three daily moments of prayer back to the Jewish practice, this cannot be proven with certainty. R. Taft believes this is only probable for the Christians in Egypt at the beginning of the second century.13 Over a hundred years later, in the Stromata, Clement of Alexandria again mentions the prayers at the third, sixth, and ninth hour, but also an evening prayer14 and, in his Paedagogos, a nighttime prayer.15 The pattern of daily services in the Alexandrian church seems to have been: morning, midday, evening, and night.16 At the end of the second century, Tertullian mentions the daily prayer in the Latin-Christian world. He too mentions, in De Oratione, the third, the sixth, and the ninth, and also prayers at the beginning of the night and of the day.17 There, he is also the first to give a theological interpretation of the three times of prayer: the third hour is associated with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the sixth and the ninth with events in the lives of the apostles. The three combined are connected with the Holy Trinity. In his Ad uxorem, Tertullian also mentions a nocturnal prayer.18  Bradshaw, Daily Prayer, 23-27; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 5-11.  Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the First Four Centuries,” 7. 11  Didache, in La doctrine des douze apôtres: introd., texte, trad., notes, appendice et index, ed. Willy Rordorf and André Tuilier, Sources Chrétiennes 248 (Paris: Cerf, 1978), VIII, 2-3, pp. 172-174. Directly after the text of the Lord’s Prayer this reads: Τρὶς τῆς ἡμέρας οὕτω προσεύχεσθε. 12  Berachot IV,1, in Der Babylonische Talmud, trans. Lazarus Goldschmidt (Den Haag: Nijhof, 1933), 95f.; Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the First Four Centuries,” 11. 13  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 10f. 14  Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, in Clément d’Alexandrie, Les stromates IV, trans. Claude Mondésert, introd. and notes Annewies Van den Hoeck, Sources Chrétiennes 463 (Paris: Cerf, 2001), VII,7, 40,3 and 49,3-4; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 14. 15  Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, in Clément d’Alexandrie, Le pedagogue l. 2, trans. Claude Mondésert, notes Henri-Irénée Marrou, Sources Chrétiennes 108 (Paris: Cerf, 1965), II.9.79, p. 158; Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the First Four Centuries,” 13; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 15. 16  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 17. 17  Tertullian, De Oratione, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. Tertulliani Opera, pars I (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954), 24-25, pp. 272f. 18  Tertullian, Ad uxorem, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. Tertulliani Opera, pars I (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954), II.5, p. 389; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 17-19. 9

10

192

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

In his De oratione dominica, the Church Father Cyprian, in the third century, again refers to the times mentioned: the three oldest during the day, as well as the morning prayer, the evening prayer, and the nightly vigil.19 The Trinity and the passion and resurrection of Jesus play an important part in his theological interpretation.20 In the chapters 25, 35, and 41 of the Traditio apostolica, we also find extensive references to the daily prayer. Here, too, there is an evening prayer, during which the light is brought in and blessed,21 a prayer before going to sleep, a nocturnal vigil, a prayer while rising, and the three times of prayer during the day, at the third, sixth, and ninth hour.22 Sometimes these are communal prayers, combined with instruction, often they are also recited in solitude or in the family circle.23 In all these writings, there is little mention of the contents of the services, only of their times and spiritual significance. Neither are they yet viewed as a liturgical whole. They do, however, make clear that the daily and nightly prayer of the Christians took place from the very beginning, true to the words of Jesus to always pray (Luke 18:1) and of the apostle Paul, “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess 5:17). The fourth century was the time of peace for the Church within the Roman empire, growth of Christian communities in the cities, and the development of monasticism. During this period, the liturgy of the hours developed in two directions: towards a “cathedral office” and towards a “monastic office.” The liturgy of the hours, then, was celebrated publicly in the episcopal churches, but also played an important part in the various forms of monastic life “as an incentive to the ceaseless prayer of the monk.”24 Characteristic of the cathedral offices was that the celebrations, including in the choice of psalms, made clear references to the time of day and particularly made use of the symbolism of the new day or of the evening light, whereas the monastic hours prayed the 19  Cyprian, De dominica oratione 29.34-36.45, in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 3A, ed. C. Moreschini (Turnhout: Brepols, 1976), 108-113. 20  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 19-21. 21  Traditio apostolica, in Hippolyte de Rome, La tradition apostolique, d’après les ­anciennes versions: introd., trad. et notes, ed. Bernard Botte OSB, Sources Chrétiennes 11bis (Paris: Cerf, 21984), 100; cf. Paul F. Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: ­Fortress, 2002). 22  Traditio apostolica, in Hippolyte de Rome, La tradition apostolique, ed. Botte, 118 and 124-132. 23  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 21-27. 24  Robert F. Taft SJ, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the East,” in Liturgical Time and Space, ed. Chupungco, 29-59, at 29f.



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

193

­ salter in succession.25 Various monastic rules testify to the daily comp munal prayers: the Rule of Pachomius (died 346) mentions a morning and an evening prayer and a vigil.26 The anchorites and cenobites in the desert, however, probably emphasized not the communal offices, but a continuous inner prayer.27 An example of the cathedral liturgy of the hours can be found in the pilgrimage journal of Egeria (probably written in the eighties of the fourth century) that describes the liturgy of Jerusalem. She mentions the celebration of the prayer vigil in the latter part of the night, followed by the morning service at dawn.28 These services were comprised of psalms, hymns, and prayers, just like Sext and None. The bishop said the closing prayer and the blessing. The evening service was also called lucernarium, because of the rite of light with which this service commenced.29 The Apostolic Constitutions, a fourth-century set of ecclesial rules from the region of Antioch, also give an elaborate description of the three cathedral prayer services: morning prayer, evening prayer, and the Sunday’s vigil of the resurrection.30 At the end of the fourth century, a synthesis developed between these two, the mixed or urban monastic form, of which Basil the Great (died 379) is an example. He mentions eight prayers: at the morning hour, the third, sixth, and ninth hour, when the day has ended, at the beginning of the night, at midnight, and before daybreak. The services consist of psalms, prayers, and readings, and each has its own specific quality.31 According to Taft, the minor hours of Terce, Sext, and None have a monastic background, whereas Morning and Evening Prayer are derived from the cathedral liturgy. In his view Compline, as a reduplication of Vespers before going to sleep, is a new introduction of Basil’s.32 In John Chrysostom as well, shortly after Basil, we find a description of the daily prayer services with

 Taft, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the East,” 29-31.  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 62-65. 27  Ibid., 66-73. 28  Egeria, Itinerarium Egeriae, in Égérie, Journal de Voyage. Introduction, texte critique, traduction, ed. Pierre Maraval, Sources Chrétiennes 296 (Paris: Cerf, 1982), 234-250. 29  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 48-55; Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the First Four Centuries,” 23f. 30  Apostolic Constitutions, in Les constitutions apostoliques, tome I, L.2, 59 (324-326) and tome III, L.8, 34-35 (242-246), Sources Chrétiennes 320 (Paris: Cerf, 1985) and Sources Chrétiennes 336 (Paris: Cerf, 1987); Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the First Four Centuries,” 23. 31  Basil, Regula Fusius Tractata, Qu. 37; Patrologia Graeca 31, cols. 1012ff.; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 84-91. 32  Taft, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the East,” 31. 25

26

194

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

their spiritual significance.33 Morning Prayer is meant to thank and praise God and to ask His blessing over the coming day. Evening Prayer asks for forgiveness for the sins of the past day. There is also a final prayer, in which one asked for God’s protection during the night and to rise again healthy the next day, in order to praise God. This was undoubtedly the time of prayer that Benedict would later call completorium.34 Both forms of the liturgy of the hours then, the monastic and the cathedral, as well as the mixed form, originate in the East. The most important link of this form of prayer with the West was John Cassian. From his own experience, he was familiar with the monastic prayer culture of the Egyptian desert, but also with the mixed, urban monastic model extant in Bethlehem.35 He describes both in his De institutionis coenobiorum, through which he introduces the Eastern monastic form of prayer in the West.36 He there mentions, among other things, a new hour of prayer, according to some Prime, separated from Lauds.37 He also makes mention of a prayer gathering after the evening meal on Saturday and Sunday, the close of the day, possibly an early form of the later Compline. All in all, Cassian thus arrives at seven daily prayer times and one at night, and for these numbers he refers to the 118th[119th] psalm.38 At his monastic foundation in Marseille in 415, Cassian gave this liturgy of the hours an important stimulus in the West. In actual fact, he was not the first. Ambrose of Milan (died 397) as well, was familiar with prayer seven times a day, as can be concluded from his De Virginibus. He introduced the antiphonal singing of psalms in Milan and wrote his own form of stanzaic songs, hymns, for community singing. Both spread quickly from Milan throughout the West. Such a cathedral office must also have been present in the city of Rome before the year 500, though little is known of its content.39 The oldest form of Western monastic ordering of the liturgy of the hours has been introduced by Cassian in his Monastery of St. Victor in Marseilles 33  John Chrysostom, Eight Baptismal Catecheses, in Jean Chrysostome, Huit catéchèses baptismales inédites, ed. Antoine Wegner, Sources Chrétiennes 50 (Paris: Cerf, 1950), 256-257. 34  Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the First Four Centuries,” 21; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 83. 35  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 76. 36  John Cassian, Institutions, in Jean Cassien, Institutions Cénobitiques: texte latin revu, introduction, traduction et notes, ed. J.-C. Guy SJ, Sources Chrétiennes 109 (Paris: Cerf, 1965), book II on nighttime prayer and book III on the daytime hours, 58-116. 37  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 79. 38  Ps 119:164 and Ps 119:62, see also RB 16:1-4. 39  Rubén Leikam OSB, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the Roman Rite,” in Liturgical Time and Space, ed. Chupungco, 59-98, at 59-62.



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

195

and was spread by the Rule of Caesarius of Arles (died 542), which gives an ordo psallendi, includes canticles and songs of praise, and establishes a schedule of readings. He made participation in Morning and Evening Prayer compulsory for the presbyters. Although his liturgy of the hours was primarily meant for monks, the secular clergy and the people were closely involved in it.40 During the same period, the anonymous Regula Magistri also came into being, with seven times of prayer a day, plus the nocturnes of the vigil.41 Here we also come across Compline with two Scripture readings, from the Letters of the Apostles and the Gospels.42 The number of psalms per service is determined; after the psalmody come Scripture readings, already shortened into capitula, and then there is an intercessory prayer in the form of a litany. The Rule of Saint Benedict, which also came into being in the first half of the sixth century, makes extensive use of this Rule of the Master. Benedict devotes thirteen chapters to the arrangement of his liturgy of the hours, in which he lets his monks sing all 150 psalms each week and reads all of Scripture in the course of one year. The three minor hours, Prime, and Compline, are transmitted monastic heritage which he includes. Besides this, he takes the canticles, hymns, and the choice of psalms proper to the morning and the evening from the cathedral liturgy. Down to many details, the office given by the Rule of Saint Benedict became the “fundamental and nearly final form” of the Western liturgy of the hours.43 In him we also, for the first time, see Compline as its own, complete whole, with as its basic theme the entrusting to God and the prayer for Christ’s presence as protection against the dangers of the night. The three traditional psalms 4, 90 [91], and 133 [134], sung every day, particularly express this.44 Preceding this office, there was a spiritual reading, taken for instance from Cassian’s Collationes.45 Besides this, Compline, according to Regula Benedicti 17:9-10, after the three abovementioned psalms, consisted of a hymn, a lesson, a verse, the Kyrie eleison, and the blessing that forms the conclusion.46  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 97 and 101.  Rule of the Master, in La Règle du Maître II: texte, traduction et notes, ed. Adalbert de Vogüé OSB, Sources Chrétiennes 106 (Paris: Cerf, 1964), c. 31-52, pp. 168-240; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 122-130. 42  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 123. 43  Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the Roman Rite,” 62-64. 44  Timothy Fry OSB, ed., The Rule of St. Benedict in English (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1982), 17:9, en 18:19. 45  Ibid., 42:3. 46  Ibid., 17:9-10. 40 41

196

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

The spread of this form of divine office took place in the context of the Carolingian reform in the eighth and ninth centuries. During this time, clerics were increasingly urged to live “canonically,” that is, to live in community and pray the liturgy of the hours. One could call this a “monastification” of the priests. In the eighth century, the liturgy of the hours gradually turned into an obligation for the clergy. Anyone who was unable to attend, had to pray the hours in private.47 A testimony to the important role of the liturgy of the hours can be found in the Ordines Romani XVII, a manuscript from about 775, that gives concise information about the daily offices. On Compline in the monasteries, it says that the brothers gather for a reading, after which there is a light meal. Then Compline is sung in the dormitory, closed with the verse Pone, domine, custodiam ori meo, “Place, O Lord, a guard before my lips” (Ps 140 [141]:3), after which night silence begins.48 Under the supervision of Benedict of Aniane (745-821), the obligation to pray this office was implemented in Charlemagne’s empire. Multiple additions and changes were added, based on the consuetudines, so that this can in fact no longer be called the liturgy of Benedict and must instead be named a “Roman-Benedictine office.” It was the work of Amalarius of Metz (775-850) to proliferate this cursus Romanus in the Carolingian empire. Particularly in his Liber Officialis he, among other things, gave an allegorical explanation of the entire divine office, while in the Liber de Ordine Antiphonarii, pars I, he mainly applies the psalms of each office to Christ.49 Here, sleep is compared to death and the link is made to Christ’s rest in the grave. In both cases, the main issue is the confidence that the person praying entrusts himself to the hands of God in sleep and death. It is striking that in Amalarius, we do not find the hymn and the capitulum that were mentioned in the Rule of Saint Benedict. He is, however, familiar with the verse from Ps 16 [17]:8, custodi, and the canticle from the Gospel, Nunc dimittis. He also adds a fourth to the three psalms proposed by the monastic father, namely Psalm 30 [31], especially because of verse 6: “Into your hands, Lord, I commend my  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 299.  Michel Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du haut Moyen Âge. III: Les textes (Ordines XIV-XXXIV) (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1951), Ordo XVIII, 8-11, 206. Cf. Introduction, 201. 49  Amalarii Episcopi, Opera liturgica Omnia, edita a J.M. Hanssens SJ, T. II: Liber Officialis, Studi e Testi 139 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1948), Liber IV, c. IX, 439-442; Amalarii Episcopi, Opera liturgica Omnia, edita a J.M. Hanssens SJ, T. III: Liber de Ordine Antiphonarii; Ecologae de Ordine Romano, Studi e Testi 140 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1950), pars I, C. VII: De completorio, 35f. 47 48



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

197

spirit,” that was prayed by Christ on the cross. It is therefore clear that, 250 years after Benedict wrote his Rule, Compline was drastically changed in the context of the Carolingian reform. After the Carolingian renaissance, one can see three important trends in the course of the following centuries. First of all, an enormous increase of the number of elements in the liturgy of the hours, particularly more offices and psalms and readings. The number of saint’s days with their own offices also greatly increased. Especially the influential abbey of Cluny became known for this. The daily Opus Dei took up most of the day.50 But the secular clergy as well began to perceive the obligatory liturgy of the hours as a heavy burden. The second trend was the increase of the custom of praying the office privately. This developed from an exception to a practice to, in the sixteenth century, for the Jesuits, the only form.51 The third trend consisted in letting go of the natural connection of the offices with the time of day, so that the liturgy of the hours was no longer considered as the sanctification of the day, but as a ritual that was to be performed each day.52 A consequence of these developments was a growing gap between the clergy and the people with regard to the liturgy of the hours. There was little opportunity anymore for participation of the faithful in the elaborate monastic office or in the privately prayed office of the priests. In the course of the Middle Ages, the papal court began to play its own part in the development of the liturgy of the hours. Starting from the eleventh century, the Popes prayed the liturgy of the hours with their immediate staff, the curia, in the court chapel, separately from the Lateran cathedral chapter. In 1215, Pope Innocent III requested a revision of the divine office. A prayer book was composed for him, with a complete description of the office and each part of the breviary.53 From this prayer book was then derived the simplified Breviarium secundum usum Romanae Curiae. It was again revised by Honorius III, accepted as their prayer book by the Friars Minor, and through them it was also circulated and became widely known.54 The version of Compline to be found herein is the first  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 308.  Ibid., 299-306. 52  Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the Roman Rite,” 69. 53  Stephen J.P. van Dijk, The Ordinal of the Papal Court from Innocent III to Boniface VIII and Related Documents, Spicilegium Friburgense 22 (Fribourg/CH: University Press, 1975); Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 308-310; Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the Roman Rite,” 70. 54  See the Later Rule of Saint Francis of 1223, where he writes: “Let the clerical [brothers] recite the Divine Office according to the rite of the holy Roman Church excepting the psalter, for which reason they may have breviaries.” Francis of Assisi: Early 50 51

198

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

to offer a penitential act, the Confiteor, at the beginning of the service.55 The longer reading, Collatio, preceding Compline, is shortened; usually this was 1 Pet 5:8. From the first half of the thirteenth century onwards, a Marian antiphon was sung immediately following Compline, in accordance with the already existing custom of singing a salutation to Mary after the other offices. The thirteenth century has left us two almost identical descriptions of the liturgy of Compline: that of Sicard of Cremona (died 1215) and that of Durand of Mende (died 1296). We represent that of Durand’s Ratio­ nale, book V, caput 10: Collatio – verse Converte nos – verse Deus in adiutorium – psalms 4, 30 [31] (1-6), 90 [91], 133 [134] – hymn Te Lucis – chapter Tu autem in nobis – responsory In manus Tuas – verse Custodi nos – canticle Nunc dimittis – Pater noster and Preces – Credo – Confiteor – Psalm 50 [51] – oration and closing verse Benedicamus Domino.56 To this compilation the Marian antiphon would later be added, the Confiteor would be moved forward, and Psalm 50 [51] would disappear. Apart from these points, it is the same structure that is also found in the manuscripts of the curia-breviary, which Pope Pius V took as point of departure for the Tridentine breviary and which would determine the form of the office of Compline until the Second Vatican Council. In the sixteenth century, the burden of the obligatory prayer of the breviary was felt by many to be even more onerous. In order to ease this difficulty, Cardinal Quignonez published a revised breviary in 1535. In many ways it constituted a break with tradition, along with being a drastic abbreviation, by omitting the antiphons and responsaries and simplifying the rubrics, while nevertheless all the psalms were still prayed in the course of one week. In 1558, however, it was banned by Pope Paul IV due to pressure from a growing opposition.57 This took place during the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which opted for a more traditional form of the liturgy of the hours and to that end entrusted the revision of the breviary to Pope Pius V. Five years later, in 1568, the reformed Breviarium Romanum was promulgated. It was a revised version of the thirteenth-century breviary Documents. The Saint, ed. Regis J. Armstrong, J.A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short (New York, London, and Manila: New City Press, 1999), 101. 55  Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the Roman Rite,” 71. 56  Guillelmi Duranti Rationale Divinorum officiorum, V-VI, ed. A. Davril and T.M. Thibodeau, Corpus Christanorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 140A (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), lib. V, C. 10, 1-13, pp. 111-119. 57  Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the Roman Rite,” 71-74.



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

199

of Innocent III. Readings were shortened, in some offices the number of psalms was reduced, but the psalter was still prayed in one week. The book also signified a confirmation of the practice that had developed of reciting individually and a farewell to possible opportunities for a communal liturgy of the hours. For the office of Compline, this new publication brought with it several important changes. For the first time, three varying psalms were prayed on weekdays, while the classic three, 4, 90, and 133, were only prayed on Sundays. These new psalms were of a supplicant nature and prayed for God’s protection in the coming night. A fixed, already familiar hymn was chosen, Te lucis ante terminum, which was positioned after the psalmody, always followed by the familiar short chapter from Jer 14:9: Tu autem in nobis est. During the centuries that followed, few changes were made to the Roman breviary. The complaint remained, however, of a too heavy burden and overly complicated rubrics, partially due to the continually increasing number of saint’s offices. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, accordingly, various revised breviaries appeared in France and Germany, which did not, however, gain any official status.58 In 1911, Pope Pius X appointed a commission to reform the ecclesial prayer book. It was published that same year, by means of the apostolic constitution Divino Afflatu.59 A number of added offices and psalms were removed and the psalms were redistributed, while once again maintaining the weekly recital of the 150 psalms. Compline was also given a different weekly cycle of psalms, maintaining the three from the Rule of Saint Benedict on Sundays. Beyond this, no further changes were made to the night prayer. The real changes would not come until sixty years later, when the Second Vatican Council ordered a reform of the whole liturgy of the hours. As a result of that decision in 1971, Liturgia Horarum came out with a completely renewed structure of the liturgy of the hours. The configuration of Compline, the final prayer service of each day, was also renewed. 2.  The Changes in the Compline of the Church At the publication of Liturgia Horarum in 1971, many changes drew attention. Special mention, however, is deserved by the text of the general introduction, the Institutio Generalis, which expressed the theology  Leikam, “The Liturgy of the Hours in the Roman Rite,” 76.  Ibid.

58

59

200

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

and the spirituality of the liturgy of the hours in a renewing and profound way. Important themes in this introduction were, for example, the liturgy of the hours as the prayer of Christ, as prayer of the ecclesial community, and as sanctification of the time of day, the week, and the year. The concept “sanctification of time” can be understood as connecting time with the paschal mystery by the praise of God and the supplication for the world through Christ. A strong invitation resounds in it to pray the liturgy of the hours communally60 and to celebrate each office at the time that is closest to the canonical hour, the veritas horarum.61 With regard to the changes in the configuration of each of the offices, the liturgy of the hours proved to have been greatly shortened. The reduction of the number of psalms to be prayed daily also had consequences for Compline, in which only one psalm was proposed (or, on Saturday and Wednesday evening, two short ones). There are ten changes in the office of Compline between the Breviarium Romanum as revised by Pope Pius IX,62 and the new prayer book Liturgia Horarum. 1. Abolition of the Collatio and Accompanying Blessing The old Compline began with a remarkable rite. The formula Jube domine benedicere, “Be pleased, Lord, to give the blessing,” with which, during the office, the lector asked the priest for the blessing before the readings, is a remnant from the time when a longer reading was read before Compline began. Above, we saw that collatio became the established name for this reading. After this blessing, the presider spoke the blessing formula: Noctem quietam et finem perfectum concedat nobis Dominus omnipotens, “The almighty Lord grant us a quiet night and a perfect end.” After this came the reading which, after Carolingian times, was shortened and ultimately was limited to the abovementioned verses from the first letter of Peter. The lector concluded the reading with the formula Tu autem Domine, miserere nobis, “Thou, however, Lord, have mercy on us,” to which the congregation replied: Deo gratias, “thanks be to God.” This expression was used along with the blessing and makes an appeal to God’s mercy for that which has been read to bear fruit. Both Compline and  Liturgia Horarum, Institutio Generalis 9.  Liturgia Horarum, Institutio Generalis 11. 62  Breviarium Romanum, ex decreto SS. Concilii Tridentini restitutum, S. Pii V Pontificis Maximi jussu editum, aliorumque Pontt. cura recognitum, Pii papae X auctoritate reformatum, cum nova versione Psalterii Pii Papae XII auctoritate editi (Haarlem: Gottmer, 1948). 60

61



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

201

Matins, as they appear in the Roman Breviary, retained the memory of this custom of asking and receiving a blessing before doing a reading, and afterwards asking for mercy. In the new Compline these texts were dropped for the sake of simplification, in order to prevent stagnation due to a ritual that was no longer understood. 2. Opening and Penitential Rite In the old breviary, the penitential rite, if this was prayed in choir with a priest, was said twice, just like in the old order of the Eucharist: once by the priest and once by the congregation. The new book of hours lets go of this reduplication and moreover makes the penitential rite optional. For the texts of this rite, it refers to the missal. The verse preceding this, adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini, “our help is in the name of the Lord,” is the introduction proper to the penitential rite in the preconciliar liturgy and does not count as the opening of the office. The actual opening verse, Deus in adiutorium meum intende, “O God, come to my aid,” only comes after the penitential rite and the formulas of absolution. This implies that the penitential rite was considered as a separate rite, preceding the office as such. In an explanation, description, and specimen of the new liturgy of the hours, published by the Council for Liturgical Reform in 1969, this distinction is still preserved: examination of conscience and penitential rite still precede the opening verse.63 The new book of hours no longer uses the verse adiutorium nostrum and includes the penitential rite in the office, by placing it after the opening verse. The pater noster and the verse converte nos have also disappeared from this section. The aim of this simplification was probably to clarify the significance of the opening act, in view of the second stagnation factor of rites and symbols that are not understood. 3. Relocation of the Hymn Since the Rule of Saint Benedict, the fixed place of the hymn in Compline was immediately following the psalmody.64 This place in the old breviary was the same as that in Lauds and Vespers and divergent from Matins and the minor hours, in which the hymn preceded the psalmody. 63  Consilium ad exsequendum constitutionem di sacra liturgia, Descriptio et specimina officii divini iuxta Concilii Vaticani II decreta instaurati (Vatican City, 1969), 47ff. 64  Fry, ed., The Rule of St. Benedict in English, 17:9-10.

202

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

In Liturgia Horarum the choice was made to place the hymn at the beginning in all the offices, immediately after the opening. The Council did expressly mention the hymns in the liturgy of the hours, but did not speak of a relocation.65 A few liturgical motives for this relocation can be found in the general introduction to the liturgy of the hours, where it is posited that the hymns are a popular element in the liturgy of the hours and immediately make apparent the character of the particular hour or feast being celebrated.66 In the abovementioned explanation of the new liturgy of the hours, it is also noted that the Ambrosian office, too, is characterized by this placement of the hymns at the beginning of the service.67 For these reasons, then, the reformers probably considered the hymn to be the most suitable for beginning the service, following the opening verse. This reform is mainly focused on strengthening the sense of community, in opposition, therefore, to the fourth stagnation factor. 4. New Selection of Psalms The psalms that were sung during Compline in the Roman Breviary have two common characteristics as to content. On the one hand, they mostly call on God’s help against enemies and other dangers,68 and on the other, they mention the threat of death and the underworld (often rendered in Latin as infernum) and the confidence that there, too, God is near to the one praying and will save him from this.69 The call for help and protection predominates. On Sunday evening, however, we hear the three classic psalms 4, 90 [91], and 133 [134] that mainly emphasize trust, dedication, and praise. The Saturday evening is also exceptional. There we hear, on the one hand, Psalm 87 [88], a song of despair and darkness, in which the one praying already repeatedly sees himself in the grave and the underworld. Here, the link can be made with Christ’s resting in the grave on Holy Saturday. It is followed by Psalm 102 [103], which is a  Sacrosanctum Concilium 93.  Liturgia Horarum, Institutio Generalis, 173: “Revera, non solum sua natura lyrica ad Dei laudem nominatim destinati sunt, sed partem constituent popularem, qui etiam plerumque Horarum vel singulorum festorum individuam indolem magis quam aliae Officii partes statim demonstrant, et ad piam celebrationem animos movent et alliciunt.” 67  Descriptio et specimina officii divini, 7 on Lauds and 9 on Vespers: “Deinde dicitur hymnus, qui initio Horae transfertur, sicut in officio Ambrosiano, utpote cantus magis popularis suum tribuens Horae colorem proprium.” This remark is not made about Compline, but the argument applies equally there. 68  See e.g. 6:11; 7:2; 11:2-3; 13:3-4; 33:16-17; 69:6. 69  See e.g. 6:6; 15:10-11; 85:13; 87:11-13. 65

66



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

203

song of praise of God’s mercy. Here, some connection is already made with the resurrection. The new book of hours changes the psalmody of Compline on two points. It gives only one psalm, or two short ones, per office, which significantly shortens the service. Moreover, it opts for a different sequence. Apart from the three classic psalms, which are placed on Saturday and Sunday, three psalms from the old sequence are adopted: 15 [16] (Thursday), 85 [86] (Monday), and 87 [88] (Friday). These three belong to those psalms that speak of a descent into death and the underworld. We may state, then, that from the category mentioned first, the prayers for protection against enemies, none are retained, while from the second group, the “death psalms,” three psalms are retained. What is the nature of the newly added psalms? There, too, in Psalm 142 [143] (Tuesday) and Ps 30 [31]:1-6 (Wednesday), mention is made of opponents, but the atmosphere is more hopeful than fearful. Moreover, Psalm 142 [143] says in verse 13, Vivificabis me, “Thou shalt bring me to life,” which is also a reference to salvation from death. In the Middle Ages, Psalm 30 long belonged to the regular Compline psalms. The Gospel of Luke, 23:46, mentions that Jesus spoke the words of verse 6, In manus tuas commendo spiritum meum, “Into your hands I commit my spirit,” on the cross. These words were given a regular place in the responsory after the short reading. The choice for this psalm takes up a tradition and is at the same time a reference to the death and resurrection of Christ. Psalm 87 [88], taken from the Roman Breviary, has been moved from Saturday to Friday evening. There, too, a Christological motive can be discerned. It refers to the death of Christ, his descent into the underworld and his rest in the grave, and is therefore well suited to the night between Friday and Saturday. In summary, then, we can say that the psalmody in the book of hours has a more trusting tone and refers more strongly to the death (and resurrection) of Christ. 5. Multiple Short Readings An important change is the choice for variation in what used to be called the capitulum and what is referred to in the new book of hours as lectio brevis, “short reading.”70 The old breviary had two short readings, 1 Pet 70  Angelus A. Häussling OSB, “Die Bibel in der Liturgie der Tageszeiten,” in Tagzeitenliturgie in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Historische und theologische Studien, ed. Martin Klöckener, Liturgische Quellen und Forschungen 100 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2012),

204

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

5:8-9 before the service, as we saw, and Jer 14:9 as invariable chapter. Both were retained, on Tuesday and Friday respectively. The first is a call to vigilance, the second a trusting prayer that God will not abandon his people. Besides these, new texts have been chosen from Scripture. On Saturday there is the reading of Deut 6:4-7, the Shema Yisrael that is recited multiple times a day in the Jewish tradition, an evocative call to love God with all one’s being. Sunday evening sees the reading from Rev 22:4-5, a short summary of the life of the resurrection: the Lord God will give them light. Further new readings are on Monday (1 Thess 5:9-10), Wednesday (Eph 4:26-27), and Thursday (1 Thess 5:22), on the death and resurrection of Christ, on the moral state of the believer at the end of the day, and on the second coming of the Lord, respectively. The readings that were chosen are thus quite varied with regard to content; vigilance and trust and common themes. With this change, the reformers wanted to address the first stagnation factor, the decreased role of Scripture. 6. Abolition of the Verse A short verse from Ps 16 [17]:8, custodi me ut pupillam oculi/ sub umbra alarum tuarum protege me, “keep me as the apple of your eye, protect me in the shadow of your wings,” played a continuous part in the history of the liturgy of the hours. We came across it first during the Carolingian period, in Amalarius, but it is not impossible that Benedict is referring to this particular line of this psalm when he speaks of a verse in Compline.71 In his outline, it comes after the short reading and precedes the closing prayers, as we saw. We consistently find it there in the later breviary as well, however, there a responsory has been added immediately after the short reading, and it is followed by the nunc dimittis with antiphon. The special nature of this verse lies in its striking imagery. God is asked to be as caring for the one praying as for the apple of his own eye, and to protect him in the shadow of his wings. The two physical images express loving care, security, and intimacy, relational terms that fit in well with the personal atmosphere of Night Prayer. The omission does not appear to have a basis in content, but rather in formalities. The verse functioned as a response to the reading (as such verses still 91-110, at 96, says about this short reading: “… oft nur ein einziger Satz, hat eher die Funktion einer ‘Parole’, die Konnotationen aufruft und deshalb mehr sagt, als die knappen Worte direkt anzeigen.” 71  Fry, ed., The Rule of St. Benedict in English, 17:10.



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

205

function in the minor hours), and became a reduplication when there also came to be a more elaborate responsory at that moment in the celebration. This is an example of a certain rigorism with regard to avoiding reduplications and repetitions in the reformed liturgy. The aim here was to correct, in a broad sense, the second stagnation factor, the difficulty in understanding symbolism. 7. Abolition of Various Prayers Like most of the other offices, the earlier Compline had a sequence of prayers at its ending, the preces: the Kyrie, the Apostles’ Creed, a few verses from Dan 3:52 and 56, a blessing, a few verses from the end of the Te Deum, following which, after the liturgical greeting, came the closing prayer. The verses from Daniel, the song of the men in the fiery furnace, are surprising here, because they consist of three blessings, expressions of praise directed to God, which one does not expect at the end of the prayer and the day. The slightly adapted text from the Te Deum is also striking. It functions here as a prayer to be safeguarded against sin during the night. These are standard, traditional texts which, at the end of Compline, just before going to sleep, also carry a sense of intimacy. In the much more frugal and austere design of Compline in the new book of hours, there was apparently no room for these diverse prayers. In the other offices they have also disappeared, only in Lauds and Vespers newly written intercessory prayers have taken their place. 8. Multiple Closing Prayers Instead of the single, fixed closing prayer Visita quaesumus Domine, in which one asks for “the enemy” to be driven away and that the dwelling might be occupied and protected by God’s angels, we now have seven new prayers, a different one for each day of the week. The old prayer is now only recommended for solemnities. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday have closing prayers that match the Christological significance of the day: on Friday the entombment, on Saturday looking forward to the celebration of the resurrection, and on Sunday the prayer to raise oneself up in the joy of the resurrection. Monday mentions the work of the past day, that it might, as seed, grow into an abundant harvest. Tuesday’s prayer asks for a peaceful night, in order to be able to rise again with joy the next day. The prayer on Wednesday evening makes reference to Matt 11:29f., the easy yoke and the light burden, and asks for rest after the work that has

206

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

been done. On Thursday evening the request is for regaining strength in order to be able to continue to serve God in body and mind. In fact, all these prayers have bearing on the necessary rest after the day’s work and are thus directly focused on the coming sleep. They enrich Compline and make this prayer more concrete. They also strengthen the awareness of community and the relationship of the liturgy with the surrounding culture, against the fourth and sixth stagnation factors. 9. Adaptation of the Blessing Of old, the office of Compline was closed with a blessing or benediction. The breviary made use of the general blessing formula: Benedicat et custodiat nos omnipotens et misericors Domininus, Pater, Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, “May the almighty and merciful God bless and keep us, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” which was still used in 1969 in the abovementioned example.72 At the final publication of Liturgia Horarum, this had been replaced by the “blessing for the lector” from the preceding collatio which had been removed, Noctem quietam et finem perfectum concedat nobis Dominus omnipotens, “May the almighty Lord grant us a quiet night and a perfect end,” which is somewhat more fitting. The parallel between the night and the end of one’s life, which is typical of Compline, makes this a characteristic prayer for this moment. 10. Marian Antiphon The closing Marian antiphon was retained. The custom of reserving certain antiphons for certain liturgical seasons has become optional, with the exception of Regina Caeli, which remains reserved for Eastertide. Sub tuum praesidium, an antiphon dating back to the ninth century, was added.73 The custom of praying a verse and an oration after the antiphon was still present in the abovementioned specimen of 1969, but was no longer included in the final publication.74 The singing of a beloved devotional song to Mary at the end of the service is one of the motives that make Compline attractive for the faithful to participate in it.75  Descriptio et specimina officii divini, 50.  The antiphon stems from a fourth-century Greek text. 74  Descriptio et specimina officii divini, 50. 75  Andreas Heinz, “Die marianischen Schlußantiphonen im Stundengebet,” in Leben­ diges Stundengebet: Vertiefung und Hilfe, ed. Martin Klöckener and Heinrich Rennings (Freiburg i.Br., Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1989), 342-367. 72 73



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

207

3.  The Changes to the Monastic Compline Liturgia Horarum is the ecclesial book of prayer for all those who “have received from the Church the mandate to pray the liturgy of the hours,” in particular priests and religious, while the other faithful are also invited to this prayer.76 The monastic world had its own prayer books; for the Benedictine Order this was the Breviarium Monasticum,77 and one might expect that here an adapted breviary would also be composed. This, however, did not happen. In 1977, the Abbot Primate of the Benedictines instead had a Thesaurus Liturgiae Horarum Monasticae published, an official workbook, approved by the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, for the benefit of the monastic liturgy of the hours.78 The intention of this book is that the contemplative monasteries use it to compose their own offices on the basis of common points of departure. To that end, the Thesaurus includes three sections: (1) a framework law, in which the outlines are given that the abbeys are to adhere to; (2) a directory for the monastic liturgy of the hours, a reflection on the structure and the theology of the offices; and (3) a workbook with building blocks (distributions of psalms, hymns, antiphons, verses, responsories, and readings). These are very broad guidelines which make recommendations. Illustrative of this is the first sentence of the framework law: Each monastic congregation and each monastery individually has the freedom to make laws for its members regarding the use of the Thesaurus and the Lectionarium, as well as for the application of what is included in this framework law.79 76  Pope Paul VI, Constitutio Apostolica qua officium divinum ex decreto concilii oecumenici Vaticani II instauratum promulgatur, in Liturgia Horarum, 9-18, at 17: “Ii vero, qui mandatum ab Ecclesia acceperunt Liturgiam Horarum celebrandi, integrum eius cursum cotidie religiose persolvant, horarum veritate, quantum fieri potest, servata; …” 77  Breviarium Monasticum, Pauli V jussu editum, Urbani VIII et Leonis XIII cura recognitum et Benedicti XV auctoritate reformatum, pro omnibus sub Regula S. Patri Benedicti militantibus, partes I et II (Brugge: J.H. Gottmer and Desclée de Brouwer, 1930; Mechelen, 41953). 78  Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, 569f. 79  Thesaurus Liturgiae Horarum Monasticae (Rome: Secretariatus Abbatis Primatis, 1977), II Praenotanda, seu Normae directivae pro monasticae Liturgiae Horarum celebratione, 21-22: “Singulae Congregationes monasticae vel singulae earum domus facultate gaudent legum ferendarum pro suis membris circa usum Thesauri, Lectionarii, et circa applicationem normarum, quae in his Praenotandis contintentur.” See also Notitiae 12 (1977): 156-191.

208

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

The directory also states: “In our day, Benedictine monasticism, as heir of this tradition and inspired by the same spirit, accepts a certain pluralism in the form of celebration of the Opus Dei.”80 The directory also acknowledges the autonomy of the monastic community, albeit that it is bound to its monastic nature.81 What is obligatory, is that a common Calendarium is followed (3), the celebration of at least three Hours (5a), which consist of psalms, a hymn, a reading, and prayer (5b), and reciting at least 75 psalms a week (5d). Beyond that, recommendations are made, such as to use one of the four distributions of psalms given in the Thesaurus.82 These distributions of psalms assume a distribution of the psaltery over one week (schemata A and B) or two weeks (C and D). Schema A coincides the most with the allocation of psalms that the Rule of Saint Benedict gives, with this difference that it employs two alternating distributions for the Sundays. For Compline, A gives the classic form, i.e. the three familiar psalms 4, 90 [91], and 133 [134] every day. B and C give different psalms for each evening, which deviate from both the Roman breviary and the Book of Hours. Schema C has the Canticle of Simeon being sung on Sundays and D proposes the psalms 4 and 90 together with the Canticle of Simeon each evening. What is striking here, is that the difference between the monastic Compline and that of the Roman breviary lay precisely in this canticle, which did not occur in the monastic breviary. In accordance with the Rule of Saint Benedict, the Nunc dimittis with the antiphon Salva nos was not prayed there. For that matter, the responsory In manus tuas after the short reading also did not occur in the monastic breviary. These two differences, together with singing the same fixed psalms each evening, comprise the whole distinction between Compline in the monastic and the Roman breviary. As regards the structure of the separate offices, direction is in fact taken from Liturgia Horarum,83 with the exception of the Officium lectionis that is called Ad vigilias and always has two nocturns, and three on Sundays and feast days. The arrangement of Compline is also identical, 80  Thesaurus, Directorium 19, at 13: “Hodie, monachismus Benedictinus, heres talis traditionis et eodem spiritus animatus, certum Pluralismus in forma Operis Dei celebrandi acceptat.” 81  Thesaurus, Directorium 24, at 16: “Communitas monastica proinde, asserendo suam autonomiam in rebus liturgicis, ne umquam obliviscatur, Opus Dei quod persolvit, reflectere debere indolem locale, sed super omnia indolem monasticam.” 82  Thesaurus, 40-46. 83  Thesaurus, Directorium 20, at 14: “Formam obiective determinatum, sive ipsa structura celebrationis, ut ‘semper habeatur, praemisso hymno, psalmodia, deinde longior vel brevis lectio … denique praecationes’”; cf. Liturgia Horarum, Institutio Generalis 33.



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

209

except for one anomalous detail: at the beginning of the office, the possibility of a spiritual reading is proposed.84 The antiphons, hymns, and responsories used are also usually taken from Liturgia Horarum, supplemented with material from the Antiphonale Monasticum.85 The reform of the monastic liturgy of the hours, then, is on the one hand based on Liturgia Horarum, but on the other hand offers recommendations for preserving the monastic nature of the Opus Dei. It is, moreover, a reform that respects and gives priority to the autonomy of the abbeys, hence why the monastic reformers do not give a complete, new monastic book of hours, but offer the vision, the framework, and the material with which the monasteries can compose their own divine office. This liturgical form, accordingly, does not consist in a new form that can simply be compared with the old one. It is a reform that leads to a great multiformity in the configuration of the communal prayer of the abbeys. Here, the reform consists precisely in the fact that a uniform, common liturgy of the hours for the monasteries no longer exists, but that local communities compose their own office within a certain framework. In this office, general ecclesial elements, specifically monastic elements, and local elements will balance each other out.86 What implications does this have for this study? Unlike the case of the liturgy of the monastic profession (below), it is not useful to compare multiple variants because the particular circumstances of the various monasteries have caused a large number of variations in the liturgy, which can only be studied in relation to those local circumstances. This would require an extensive empirical study that does not fit within the framework of a limited case study. The Thesaurus, however, makes clear that here the liturgical reform itself does not consist in one or multiple new liturgical ordo/ordines, but rather in a new set-up of the realization of the liturgy of the hours. From the Thesaurus we conclude that this new set-up is characterized by the following elements: (1) the autonomy of the abbeys is emphasized; (2) the abbeys compose the offices themselves, broadly speaking following Liturgia Horarum; (3) they ensure a specifically monastic character on certain points; (4) they are open to the possibility of more local elements in the Opus Dei. Evaluation must take into consideration as much as possible the liturgical reform of the monastic Compline, understood as the application of these four elements.  Thesaurus, 36-37.  Ibid., 61ff. 86  Thesaurus, Directorium 19, at 13. 84 85

210

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

4.  Evaluation of the Reforms In the course of the Middle Ages, the liturgy of the hours did not escape a continuous expansion and extension of the prayers, offices, and rituals. Since the sixteenth century multiple attempts have been made to realize a simplification and abbreviation. However, as we saw, a recurring pattern was that these reforms ultimately did not carry through. Multiple times, the Magisterium was unable to accept the great deviations from the transmitted form and instead offered its own reform of the breviary that was less drastic. The Second Vatican Council contrasts with previous councils in that there was now great resolve to implement reforms according to the abovementioned principles. To this end, an extensive group of experts set to work.87 Having analyzed the changes made, an evaluation can be performed by means of the four criteria. The emphasis will be on the ecclesial reform that led to Liturgia Horarum, but when possible also considering the monastic reform. 1. Is Christ’s Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy? The salvation Christ brought is made present and celebrated in all forms of Christian liturgy. What place did the reform of the liturgy of the hours give to the mystery of Christ? (1) The short reading preceding Compline, with its accompanying texts (request, blessing, closing), does not contain any explicit reference to Christ. It is a call to vigilance with regard to the activity of the devil. Its removal does not result in a change to the Christological content of Compline. (2) This also holds true for the removal of some verses and the Our Father. The Lord’s Prayer was prayed often in the old liturgy and consequently functioned as a form of private oral prayer. In the revised liturgy of the hours, it is only used as a closing, summarizing prayer in Lauds and Vespers. Its removal, then, is not a great liturgical loss, and also hardly detracts from the Christological dimension. From the perspective of Christ’s reality of salvation, more importance might be attached to making the examination of conscience and the penitential act optional; after all, if the choice is made not to follow this custom, the opportunity of reflecting on the past day in the light of God’s mercy in Christ is missed.  Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, 491-493.

87



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

211

(3) Moving the hymn to the beginning of the service (as also happened in Lauds and Vespers) can be justified with a reference to the General Introduction to the liturgy of the hours, no. 42, where two reasons for this can be found. On the one hand, there is a liturgical argument: the hymn is chosen in such a way that immediately at the beginning of the service in question it gives it its own particular color, on the other hand there is a pastoral argument: this placement of the hymn offers a more accessible and pleasant beginning.88 In our view, the Christological motive does not play a part in the relocation. In offering two alternative hymns, however (Christe, qui splendor et dies as general variant, and Jesu redemptor saeculi, for Eastertide89), the aim is to make the Christ-mystery present. Both are addressed to Christ and refer to his redemptive actions. (4) The change in the psalmody mentioned and described in VIII.2.4 also seems to point to a more Christological meaning of the psalms. The psalm texts that pray for defense and protection against enemies in a general sense are used less. The texts that are now used on weekdays can almost all be interpreted in a Christological sense, as referring to his death and often also the salvation from death. In support of this argument are the following verses: 85 [86]:13 (Monday); 142 [143]:8 and 11 (Tuesday); 30 [31]:6 and 130 [131]:6 (Wednesday); 15 [16]:10-11 (Thursday); 87 [88]:11-12 (Friday). (5) The short readings in Compline are largely new. In the old Compline, the same capitulum was always read, Jer 14:9, which is now found on Friday. The reading that used to precede Compline, 1 Pet 5:8-9, has been placed on Tuesday. Neither text contains a specific reference to Christ. The theme of the first letter of Peter, vigilance against the danger of the devil, can also be found in the newly chosen reading from Eph 5:26-27. To a certain extent, it fits in with the psalmody of the old breviary, in which the pressure of the “enemy” was a recurring theme. Two other newly chosen readings, from 1 Thess 5:9-10 and 5:23, both mention Christ, his death and resurrection, and his second coming. The short readings for Saturday and Sunday, the Shema from Deuteronomy 6 and the heavenly existence from Revelation 22, are both in a class of their own and without any explicit reference to Christ. All in all, the short readings from both the Old and the New Testament are varied, referring to the danger of evil, salvation by Christ, the protective presence of God,  Liturgia Horarum, Institutio Generalis 42, at 40.  Liturgia Horarum II, Ordinarium, 834f.

88

89

212

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

and the future in the Kingdom of God. On balance, Christ is mentioned more often than in the old breviary. (6) As seen in VIII.2.6., the abolished verse of Ps 16 [17]:8 has a long history in Compline. It does not contain any explicit Christological reference or possible Christological significance. (7) and (8) The Kyrie, which was recited in the old Compline, can be seen as addressed to Christ. Along with a number of other prayer texts, including a second Our Father, it was abolished. The benedictions in the preces are addressed to God the Father or to the Holy Trinity. The oration in the old breviary did not contain any reference to Christ either, but, as we saw, spoke of “the enemy” and the angels. The new, variable orations on Monday and Thursday are about the work of the past day, on Tuesday it is a prayer for a peaceful night. On the other days they are addressed to Christ (Wednesday) or are about him, about his rest in the grave (Friday), the expectation of his resurrection (Saturday), and looking back on the celebration of his resurrection, along with a prayer for a peaceful night. Here, too, there is variation, and here it also be noted that in the orations at the end of Compline, the Christ-mystery plays a more central part in Liturgia Horarum than in the old breviary. (9) and (10) The changes described above concerning the closing blessing and the Marian antiphons did not result in a shift in the Christological content. The monastic reform of the liturgy of the hours, applying more monastic elements and local texts and customs, has no direct bearing on the Christological dimension. In conclusion, Compline, as it is outlined in Liturgia Horarum, transmits Christ’s reality of salvation to a greater degree than the Breviarium Romanum. The limited decrease on this point, caused by making the penitential rite optional, is amply balanced out by the greater part that the Christ-mystery plays in the newly added alternative hymns, the psalmody, the short readings, and the new prayers. 2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant? In order for people to understand the liturgy and experience it as being relevant, it is important that they can recognize their own experiences in the texts and acts of a celebration. The office of Compline is naturally suited to this recognition. The ending of the day and the transition to night means entering into a borderland, which is referred to in ritual



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

213

studies with the term “liminality.” It is a fundamental change, from light to darkness, from work to repose, from an open and public to a personal and private atmosphere. This ritual of this last office of the day is helpful in living through this experience and sharing it with others. Spiritually, this translates to the characteristic theme of Compline, the commendatio, trustfully commending oneself to God together with Christ. The connection between going to sleep and the awareness of one’s own mortality, as it appears, among other things, in the final blessing, is also a familiar element.90 Compline is the evening prayer of the day, but also the evening prayer of life. It is prayed in union with all those who are going through the night of pain and doubt, the Gethsemane-night of suffering and death. These elements make the night prayer of the Church a recognizable and relevant celebration. For each of the ten points of revision the degree to which this is expressed can now be assessed. (1) The preceding short reading with the blessing of the lector is a rudiment from a time when that reading took place in choir, read by someone who was actually given this blessing. It is therefore rationally understandable that these parts were left out. On a non-rational level, however, that decision leads to a loss. The prayer for a peaceful night and a good end of one’s life, and the call for vigilance with regard to the active power of evil are both near to our human experience: this combination of terms evokes an experience which is felt to be penetrating and meaningful precisely at the time before going to sleep. The fact that the old Compline began with this, meant that the participant in this prayer could immediately be brought to the proper disposition. (2) For many people it feels “natural” to look back on what one has experienced at the end of the day and think about what went well or less well. A moment of examination of conscience and acknowledgment of faults is therefore very understandable and can easily be experienced as relevant. Making the penitential rite optional (and thus possibly encouraging it to be skipped over) is not therefore an improvement. Terms such as “examination of conscience,” “sin,” and “penitential act,” might 90  Theodor Maas-Ewerd, “Pastorale Erwägungen zur Komplet,” in Lebendiges Stundengebet: Vertiefung und Hilfe, ed. Klöckener and Rennings, 431-441, at 432: “Viele Christen, jüngere und ältere, haben vor einigen Jahrzehnten gerade aus dieser Hore, aus dem Nachtgebet der Kirche, Kraft für ihr Leben geschöpft. Ob der ‘Einstieg’ in die Komplet, aus verschiedener Gründer leichter als bei den ‘grossen’ Horen, nicht auch heute zu vergleichbaren pastoralliturgischen Bemühungen ermuntern sollte?” For the connection between sleep and death, see also pp. 432 and 436f.: “Weil das Einschlafen auf das ‘Entschlafen’ hinweist, legt der Christ sich selbst und die Sorge um sein Leben in die Hände Gottes: ‘Herr, auf dich vertraue ich, in deine Hände lege ich mein Leben’.”

214

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

even discourage this practice. The evaluation must be considered inconclusive on this point. (3) The hymns proposed for Night Prayer are very recognizable, mainly because they all make reference to sleep. The prayer is expressed that God protect the human person during the night, that the person might still be with God in heart and dreams, and that the spirit be vigilant during sleep. These are familiar prayers that can be considered to be relevant for many people. (4) The psalmody can, in general, also be considered recognizable. The predominant theme of the psalms, apart from the Christological motif, is God’s protection of the person in all kinds of danger. Protection as the night begins is a human need. Only Psalm 87 [88] has to be considered a dark and bleak text, which will therefore not always be able to be shared in everyone’s experience. (5) The short readings are more varied. Some of them will be more easily recognized as relevant. In general, they are well-chosen texts that bring out essential elements of the faith in a simple and accessible way. (6) The omission of the verse from Ps 16 [17]:8 means the lack of two striking metaphors of God’s caring. It is possible that this has made Compline more abstract and less appealing. (7),(8) The new closing prayers have been simplified and, like the readings, are more varied. They mention the elements of the fruitfulness of the work of the past day, and the rest of the coming night, which can be considered to be very recognizable and relevant. (9) The atmosphere of the final blessing that has been chosen fits in better with the mental constitution of people at the time of going to sleep: the prayers for a peaceful night and a good end of one’s life are closely related to the human experience of existence. (10) Generally speaking, the Marian antiphons are tender parts of the celebration, which touch the hearts of the participants, in both text and melody, with the prayer for motherly attention and intercession and are therefore considered to be meaningful. In general, it seems the texts of Compline are relevant and meaningful. This evaluation mainly pertains to the new texts and the increased variety. The omission of some traditional texts with emotional overtones does not aid the recognizability of this celebration. However, the simplification in itself is an important aid to greater recognizability and accessibility.91  Cf. Angelus A. Häussling OSB, “Tagzeitenliturgie – Irrwege und Wege,” in Tagzeitenliturgie in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Klöckener, 292-301, at 296. 91



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

215

3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy? This third evaluation criterion has bearing on the liturgy as a transmitted phenomenon that remains essentially the same. Liturgical reforms cannot intend to change the shape of the liturgy that has been transmitted according to a particular rite. Reforms, rather, aim to restore that shape or make it come to light in a purer form, so that the original intent of this form of liturgy, according to this rite, can be better realized. “Not much has changed in the basic skeleton of the Roman Office from the time of St. Benedict: its structure has remained substantially the same from the sixth century until Vatican II,” says Taft.92 The history of the liturgy of the hours obviously shows that multiple far-reaching changes were introduced in the officium divinum. And yet, the scholars agree that its basic structure has remained the same throughout the centuries. The scheme of the Rule of Saint Benedict and the breviary of Pope Pius V can be considered two important reference points of the Roman Catholic liturgy of the hours. The proliferation of the Cluniac period and the reform by Cardinal Quignonez are two opposite examples of variations on these. Neither the tendency to rigorous expansion nor to radical simplification succeeded. But did the Catholic prayer of the breviary that remained in common usage afterwards, the Tridentine breviary, serve its deepest purpose? This purpose was the sanctification of time, the hours of the day and the days of the week.93 The intention was also that it was a prayer of the community. Christ and his apostles themselves set the example of prayerful life and the Church is in essence a community of prayer.94 Up to the Carolingian period, the liturgy of the hours had indeed been the daily prayer of the faith community, expressing “the age-old obligation of praising God in common at the beginning and end of each day.”95 Even the Council of Trent still presupposed the public liturgy of the divinum officium and nowhere mentioned the private recitation of the liturgy of

 Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 307.  Liturgia Horarum, Institutio Generalis 11: “Quoniam ergo sanctifatio diei totiusque operositatis humanae ad finem pertinent Liturgia Horarum, …” 94  Liturgia Horarum, Institutio Generalis 9: “Exemplum proinde et praeceptum Domini atque apostolorum semper et instanter orandi … pertinent ad intimam essentiam ipsius Ecclesiae, quae communitas est quaeque indolem suam communitariam oranda quoque debet declarare.” Cf. Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 340-345. 95  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 306. 92 93

216

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

the hours.96 That had, however, already become common practice in the meantime. In the course of the Middle Ages, the liturgy of the hours had become less and less the prayer of the faith community. The breviary had become unsuitable for the realization of the ideal of communal prayer and for making the liturgy of the hours a prayer of the people. As a daily obligation of prayer for priests it remained for many too heavy a burden. At some point the breviary ceased to serve its original purpose. How should we view the Second Vatican Council’s reform of the breviary in this light? Is it a reform within the existing basic structure, the skeleton of the Roman Office that Taft refers to? Or is it a substantial intervention and thus a violation of the transmitted form? Taft phrases his opinion on this matter as follows: The renewed structure represents in many respects a courageous break with the past. Problems – of language, length, a too-full monastic cursus, too many psalms in one week – were faced with imagination and resoluteness. But many believe that the unwillingness to make a more radical break with not just the forms, but with the mentality of this past, has marred the recent reform of the Roman Office.97

He considers the reformed office to be more of a contemplative prayer than a devotional prayer of the people, not suitable as communal prayer, though possibly an initial impetus to that.98 This strict separation between monastic and popular-devotional liturgy seems to go to far. These are aspects of each liturgy which are given either more or less emphasis in different circumstances and which can both find expression in the reformed liturgy of the hours, with potential additions such as silence or rituals. Taft’s view that the renewed structure represents a courageous break with the past calls for further research in the context of the third evaluation criterion. Is this break with the past indeed so courageous and is it not too great? Within the office of Compline, for the preceding reading with request, blessing, and closing (1), there is not enough reason to abolish this element. Precisely this historical rudiment from the time that Compline was as a rule sung in choir, lends something characteristic to the beginning of the office, where it has functioned from at least the twelfth century. The Thesaurus too, for the monastic Compline, sees reason to build on this custom by suggesting a reading from a spiritual work here. Making the penitential act optional  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 301.  Ibid., 314. 98  Ibid., 316f. 96 97



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

217

(2), seems not sufficiently justifiable either. The relocation of the hymn, (3) is one of the striking changes in the structure of Lauds, Vespers, and Compline, which is a correction of a liturgical law in the Rule of Saint Benedict.99 Taft considers this to be an admirable change, because the theme of the office in question is expressed right at the beginning.100 On both liturgical and pastoral grounds this assessment seems correct. It is an adaptation of the traditional structure of the office that can be justified. The greater variation in hymns to be sung is an enhancement of Compline. A change of the psalmody (4) has occurred on several occasions throughout history. The reduction, from three psalms to one (or two short ones), does not seem to be too drastic a change. The greater variety of short readings (5) can also be seen as an enhancement of the Night Prayer. The abolition of the verse (6) is, to our mind, difficult to justify. It is a small text that represents an ancient tradition and is characteristic of the atmosphere of Compline. With regard to the closing prayers (7,8): the Our Father and the Creed do not really have a liturgical function here and can be done without. Striking the Kyrie and the preces, however, represents a loss, for which the necessity is unclear as they seem to be valuable elements of prayer. The simplification of the blessing (9) fits in with general trend of the liturgical reform to reduce the number of greetings and avoid reduplications. This seems to be a choice based on rational reasons, which insufficiently takes into account the emotional dimension of the liturgy. The Marian antiphon as closing element (10) was rightly retained. However, the link between certain antiphons and certain times of the liturgical year was dropped, with the exception of the antiphon for Eastertide. Here, too, the freedom of choice is increased, but Compline offers less of a distinctive color in the different times of the year. With regard to the monastic Compline: the great freedom of choice in the abbeys has led to considerable differences in the way it is celebrated in various places. The large number of variations in all the elements means that the tradition of Night Prayer is not always recognizable. It is therefore that Compline has been greatly simplified and shortened, and that it offers more options and variations. At the beginning and end a number of elements has disappeared, where it is unclear why they no longer had a part to play and which mean a loss in the character and atmosphere of the service. The variation of hymns, prayers, and readings  Cf. Fry, ed., The Rule of St. Benedict in English, 12:4; 17:8 and 17:10.  Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 313.

99

100

218

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

is certainly an improvement. The option of either reciting a penitential act or not and of using the Marian antiphon for multiple times of year makes the celebration more general and less specific. The question whether this is still the same liturgy as that of previous generations cannot be answered in the negative. There are still sufficient signals present that indicate this is the traditional Compline. Nonetheless, a number of elements that gave Compline its own, specific color were omitted unnecessarily. The simplification made the character of the celebration more general and flat. It is precisely the details that can play a characteristic part. On certain points, the liturgical heritage was set aside. The evaluation based on the third criterion results in a minimal passing grade. 4.  Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development? The gradual implementation of reforms makes it possible to adjust a plotted course, incorporate new insights, give the process of appropriation time, and avoid giving too much weight to temporary trends. The reform of the liturgy of the hours was undertaken in the course of five years. In 1971, the new, complete book of hours was presented in Latin, while the accompanying Apostolic Constitution by Pope Paul VI is dated November 1, 1970. In this Constitution the Pope opens the possibility of beginning to use Liturgia Horarum immediately, but beyond this makes the implementation of the new prayer book dependent on the availability of the translation.101 The immediate assumption was that the liturgy of the hours would mainly be prayed in the vernacular. It took some time for the publication in the vernacular to appear; in the Netherlands, the translated and adapted book of hours did not appear until 1990. There was, however, a provisional publication that appeared in 1970, titled “Prayers for every day” and based on the data that had been collected for Liturgia Horarum and in structure completely identical to it.102 In fact, the introduction of this provisional, but nevertheless official, prayer book, with a preface by the presidents of the episcopal conferences of Belgium and the Netherlands, made a sudden and drastic change in the prayer of the breviary. The choice of psalms, short readings, and prayers in Compline still differed from Liturgia Horarum,  Paul VI, Constitutio Apostolica, 18.  Gebeden voor elke dag (Brussel and Nijmegen: Desclée de Brouwer and J.H. Gottmer, 1970, 41982), “Verantwoording,” 589. This provisional publication made use of Descriptio et specimina officii divini. 101

102



CHAPTER VIII: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS

219

but the simplified and shortened structure was completely there. There was no graduality in the transition from the old to the new book of hours. In 1965, after the Council had opened the possibility of praying the divine office in the vernacular, a bilingual edition of the Roman Breviary had been published,103 but a mere five years later the completely renewed book of hours in a preliminary Dutch form already appeared. There were no real intermediate forms. Neither was there any graduality in the introduction of the new monastic liturgy of the hours. We saw that the Thesaurus presented the reformed book of hours as the point of departure for the monasteries, with the difference that the suggestion was made to pray the psaltery in two rather than four weeks. For Compline, this meant that the exclusive choice of the psalms 4, 90, and 133 was let go of and that the possibility was opened to sing the canticle of Simeon. Whether this happened, and whether or to what degree the simplifications were applied in the abbeys, differed according to the local situation. It is therefore not possible to say in general whether changes were introduced gradually in the monasteries. The possibility of making a major modification within a brief period of time was certainly present. Just like for the other parts of the liturgy, the Council for Liturgical Reform chose to revise the entire liturgy of the hours in a single, large project. To that end, eight study groups went to work for five years. The option of doing this in smaller steps, spread out over a longer time period, in reciprocity with the users, either did not come up or was rejected. The result now gives the impression of being rationally derived from certain basic principles that were clearly and consistently applied. It can be compared with a restored house, in which the original masonry and truss that are still present can hardly be discerned anymore, where most of the ancient details have been removed and others reused, and some rooms have completely changed in atmosphere. If a more gradual reform had taken place per section, the change would perhaps have been less drastic. The reformers did not take into account the way in which this liturgy came into being: in the manner of “tradition” as we understand it here, as a process of development, in a dynamic interaction between users, those in a position of responsibility, and experts. 103  Het Romeins Brevier, Latijn-Nederlands, uitgegeven onder auspiciën van de Neder­ landse Commissie voor Liturgie en de Interdiocesane Commissie voor Liturgische ­Zielzorg en met instemming van het Nederlandse en Belgische episcopaat, twee delen (Haarlem: J.H. Gottmer; Doornik: Desclée de Brouwer, 1965).

220

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Conclusions The application of the four criteria resulted in a number of insights with regard to the reform of the divine office. The Christological criterion once again led to a positive evaluation: the mystery of Christ comes to the fore in greater measure in the renewed liturgy of the hours. The criterion of relevance for present-day people yielded a predominantly positive result. The special experience of the transition from day to night finds expression in the reformed Night Prayer as well. The two final evaluation criteria, however, identity and graduality, showed a mainly negative result. The application of these principles made it clear that the reform of the liturgy of the hours removed valuable elements of the heritage of this form of prayer without any clear necessity. The question whether this is still the same liturgy could be answered in the affirmative with some difficulty. The criterion of graduality was also not observed in this reform. The latter two criteria are derived, from the liturgical “monument of tradition.” They are consequently based on the idea of tradition as a transmitted treasure. Both criteria ask for a proper preservation, transmission, and use of that treasure. Our research indicates that the whole of the divine office as it developed and was handed down throughout history was not brought out optimally in the recent liturgical reform. Finally, we ask about the balance between the four evaluation criteria. They brought to light both strong and weak points of the reform of Compline. As in the previous study, the first criterion was given more recognition in this liturgical reform than in the second, and especially than in the third and fourth. The reform mainly had Christ in view as the source of tradition, and the appropriation by people and their communities that celebrate the liturgy of the hours today. There was less attention for the liturgical monument of traditions mediating between the two. Because of this, a number of characteristic elements that played a key part in determining the atmosphere of the celebration have disappeared and the particularity of this ancient prayer service has been damaged. The balance that is to be striven for in a liturgical reform was not properly realized.

Chapter IX

The Reform of the Liturgy of Confirmation Introduction The reform of the rite of confirmation is mentioned in the Constitution on the Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, in chapter III, De ceteris sacramentis et de sacramentalibus, which follows the chapter about the Eucharist. It begins with a short reflection on the aim of the sacraments. The Constitution distinguishes three primary aims: sanctifying people, building up the body of Christ, and giving worship to God. The document also adds a fourth aim, that is the instruction that flows from the nature of the sacraments as signs.1 This latter aim is expounded more fully. The instructive nature of the celebration demands that “the faithful should easily understand the sacramental signs.”2 In the section that discussed the reform of the confirmation liturgy, the expression clare eluceat is also used. This accordingly appears to be an important aim of the reform of the liturgy of the sacraments: the understandability of the rite. Next, a second aim of the reform becomes apparent. The text asks that “the very close connection of this sacrament with the whole process of Christian initiation may become more clearly visible.”3 Here, a specific goal of the reform of the confirmation liturgy is given: demonstrating more clearly that confirmation is a part of Christian initiation as a whole. In order to bring this about, is it asked that candidates renew their bap-

1  Sacrosanctum Concilium 59: “Sacramenta ordinantur ad sanctificationem hominum, ad aedificationem Corporis Christi, ad cultum denique Deo reddendum; ut signa vero etiam ad instructionem pertinent.” 2  Sacrosanctum Concilium 59: “Maxime proinde interest ut fideles signa Sacramentorum facile intellegant …”; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *832. 3  Sacrosanctum Concilium 71: “Ritus Confirmationis recognoscatur etiam ut huius Sacramenti intima connexio cum tota initiatione christiana clarius eluceat”; trans.: ­Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *833.

222

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

tismal promises before they are confirmed.4 That confirmation is not a separate sacrament that stands alone, but part of the triple initiation of baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist, will therefore play an important part in the reform of the liturgy of confirmation. This constitutes a correction of a development in the Western Church, which placed confirmation at more of a distance from the other two sacraments, as we will see in our historical overview. The third case study, then, concerns the reform of the confirmation liturgy. This was completed in 1971 and approved by Pope Paul VI by means of the Apostolic Constitution Divinae Consortium Naturae5 and published in the Ordo Confirmationis.6 1.  Brief Overview of the History of Liturgy of Confirmation This overview concentrates on the history of the liturgical ritual and the changes to it.7 The many other themes that receive attention in the literature, such as the age of the candidate, the minister of confirmation, the relationship with baptism and first communion, the relationship with catechesis and church community building, are only mentioned insofar as they relate directly to the reform of the ritual. A historical overview of the beginnings and the development of the rite of confirmation can be fittingly begun with the acknowledgement that in the first Christian centuries, there was no separate celebration of confirmation. Only gradually, especially from the early Middle Ages onward, did a distinction begin to be made between baptism on the one hand and the rite of laying on hands, anointing and signing, which in the West gradually was increasingly denoted with the term confirmatio, on the other. In the first four centuries, this distinction was not made. The rites of entrance into the Church were seen as a whole. Baptism, 4  Sacrosanctum Concilium 71: “… quapropter renovatio promissionum Baptismi convenienter ipsam Sacramenti susceptionem praecedet.” 5  Paul VI, “Constitutio Apostolica de sacramento confirmationis ‘Divinae Consortium Naturae’, August 15, 1971,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 63 (1971): 657-664; also in Ordo Confirmationis (see n. 6), 7-15. 6  Ordo Confirmationis, in Rituale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti oecumenici concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, editio typica (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1973). 7  This concise description of the history of the rite of confirmation in the Western Church is based mainly on Bruno Kleinheyer, Sakramentale Feiern I: Die Feiern der Eingliederung in die Kirche, Gottesdienst der Kirche: Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft 7/1 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1989), 23-95 and 191-236 and Aidan Kavanagh OSB, Confirmation: Origins and Reform (New York: Pueblo, 1988).



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

223

laying on hands and anointing, and the first participation in the Eucharist belonged together and took place during the Easter vigil. With this celebration, the Church saw itself as being part of a tradition that begins in the New Testament. According to the New Testament, the gift of the Holy Spirit is primarily connected with, if not dependent on, being baptized.8 However, this gift is also linked to the imposition of hands, which has customarily then been linked in some of these texts to confirmation. This gesture has all kinds of applications in the New Testament, ranging from healing (Luke 4:40) to confirmation in office (2 Tim 1:6), but also in connection with Christian initiation. Acts 8:14-17 and 19:1-7 speak pointedly about an imposition of hands by the apostles Peter and Paul after baptism, which imparts the gift of the Holy Spirit. Heb 6:2 also presupposes a basic knowledge on the part of the faithful about “cleansing rites and the laying on of hands.” According to B. Kleinheyer, it is difficult to dispute that the laying on of hands is part of the initiation into the faith community here.9 In the New Testament, there is no trace of a factually applied rite of anointing at baptism. There are, however, various texts that connect the concept of “anointing” or “being anointed” with the Holy Spirit, such as Luke 4:18, 21 and 2 Cor 1:21f., where in same context mention is also made of a “seal.” The two verses 1 John 2:20 and 27 also speak of an anointing that the faithful of God have received. These three biblical terms, laying on hands, anointing, and seal, in varying orders, are the components of the rite of confirmation that we will regularly come across. The Traditio apostolica is the first document that gives an elaborate and detailed description of the Christian initiation. It contains elder elements, but in its present form it can probably be dated in the fourth century. It was influential in Rome, but also in various Eastern Churches.10 There we already find mention of a laying on of hands as part of the period of preparation of the catechumenate, both by the catechist, as a conclusion of the period of learning, and by the bishop, by way of exorcism.11 This latter imposition of hands, the day before the c­ elebration of the baptism, is followed by an anointing of forehead, ears, and nose.  See e.g. Acts 2:38; Mark 1:8; 1 Cor 12:13a and Tit 3:5; Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 31. 9  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 32. 10  Adrien Nocent OSB, “Christian Initiation during the First Four Centuries,” in Sacraments and Sacramentals, ed. Chupungco, 3-28, at 17. 11  Traditio apostolica, in Hippolyte de Rome, La tradition apostolique, ed. Botte, 76-80; cf. Bradshaw, Johnson, and Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition. 8

224

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

After that, there is a vigil that leads to the baptismal ceremony in the early morning. The blessing of the oils, those for exorcism and those for thanksgiving, takes place before the baptism. After the renunciation of Satan, the candidate is anointed with the oil of exorcism. Then the baptism takes place, after which the neophytes are anointed by the priest with the sanctified oil. They then get dressed again and enter the church, where the bishop lays hands on them with a prayer for God’s grace, anoints them with the oil of thanksgiving, and draws the cross on their forehead.12 After this, the ritual mentions the kiss of peace, given by the bishop to each candidate.13 Kavanagh speaks of a “four-step procedure” consisting of 1) the episcopal prayer over all, 2) the individual imposition of hands with 3) the anointing and signing, and 4) the kiss and the greeting.14 Next, the intercessory prayers are recited and the celebration of the Eucharist begins, in which those who have been baptized and confirmed participate. It seems that the Traditio apostolica has multiple impositions of hands and anointings; the last of these, in the episcopal rite after baptism, already includes the three elements of what will later be called confirmation. Kavanagh argues that these elements factually formed a missa, a rite of sending, a closing ritual that occurred frequently in the ancient liturgy, often consisting of a prayer, an imposition of hands, and a blessing. This missa, from which, in his theory, confirmation developed, would then be the conclusion and episcopal corroboration of the baptism and the transition to the Eucharist.15 Tertullian also gives a description of the Christian initiation in his De baptismo.16 There he mentions, after the baptism with the profession of faith, the postbaptismal rites of (priestly) anointing and afterwards the  Traditio apostolica, in Hippolyte de Rome, La tradition apostolique, ed. Botte, 82-90. See Nocent, “Christian Initiation during the First Four Centuries,” 18f.; Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 50-54. 13  Traditio apostolica, in Hippolyte de Rome, La tradition apostolique, ed. Botte, 90: “… offerat osculum et dicat: Dominus tecum. Et ille qui signatus est dicat: Et cum spiritu tuo. Ita singulis faciat”; cf. Adrien Nocent OSB, “L’ordo confirmationis: un rituel qui exige de profonds remaniements,” Ecclesia Orans 8 (1991): 277-291, at 279: “… ce que nous propose, au début du troisième siècle, la Tradition Apostolique d’Hippolyte de Rome, le signe de la paix donné par l’évêque au confirmand …” 14  Kavanagh, Confirmation, 45. 15  Ibid., 31 and 46f. 16  Tertullian, De baptismo 7, ed. J.G.P. Borleffs, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1964), 282: “Exinde egressi de lavacro perungimur benedicta unctione de pristina disciplina qua ungui oleo de cornu in sacerdotium solebant ex quo Aaron a Moyse unctus est; unde Christi dicti a chrismate quod est unctio quae et domino nomen adcommodavit, facta spiritalis quia spiritu unctus est a deo patre, …” Ibid. 8, 283: “Dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans et invitans spiritum sanctum.” 12



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

225

laying on of hands while calling on the Spirit. There is no mention of an anointing by the bishop. Cyprian, in the middle of the third century, also records only one postbaptismal anointing.17 P.-M. Gy and Kleinheyer interpret this to mean that the two anointings by priest and bishop mentioned in the Traditio apostolica were originally one (double) anointing, of which the anointing by the priest should be understood as assistance, due to the large number of people being baptized.18 Others have voiced doubts about whether this second, episcopal anointing really existed, but Gy argues that this has by now been firmly established. The rituals of anointing, preceding or following baptism, appear to have been greatly divergent per region: in Antioch the anointing with myron, chrism, on the forehead took place before baptism, and in Jerusalem after.19 Over a century later, we come to the Western Church Father Ambrose of Milan. In his De sacramentis, Ambrose extensively discusses Christian initiation and its significance. Immediately after baptism, he mentions an anointing with myron.20 Striking is, afterwards, the Milanese custom of washing the feet of the newly baptized.21 Then, to complete the baptism, follows what Ambrose calls the spiritale signaculum, a sign of the cross on the forehead, along with a prayer for the gift of the Holy Spirit, during which we see for the first time the citation of the text of Isaiah 11:2-3, the seven gifts of the Spirit.22 Ambrose does not mention the laying on of hands. Whether this was not known in Milan, or simply not mentioned, or had coalesced with the sign of the cross, cannot be determined.23 Ambrose then continues his account with the continuation of the initiation, approaching the sacrament of the altar.

17  In his letter in the year 255, Cyprian, Epistula 70.2, in Patrologia Latina 3, col. 1078: “Ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus sit, ut accepto Chrismate, id est, Unctione, esse unctus Dei et habere in se gratiam Christi possit.” 18  Pierre-Marie Gy OP, “Histoire liturgique du sacrement de confirmation,” La Maison-Dieu 58 (1959): 135-145, at 137; Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 52. 19  Gy, “Histoire liturgique,” 136f. 20  Ambrose, De sacramentis III.I.1, in Ambroise de Milan, Des sacraments. Des mystères: texte établi, traduit et annoté, ed. Bernard Botte OSB, Sources Chrétiennes 25 (Paris: Cerf, 1949), 71. 21  Ambrose, De sacramentis III.I.4-7 (ibid., 72-74). 22  Ambrose, De sacramentis III.II.8 (ibid., 74): “… quia post fontem superest ut perfectio fiat, quando ad invocationem sacerdotis spiritus sanctus infunditur, spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii atque virtutis, spiritus cognitionis atque pietatis, spiritus sancti timoris, septem quasi virtutes spiritus.” 23  Cf. Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 202 and Nocent, “Christian Initiation during the First Four Centuries,” 23.

226

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

The single initiation in the Easter vigil, however, is not retained. Earlier, there had already been exceptions, especially in the case of the baptism of someone who was seriously ill, in which case confirmation by the bishop could probably not take place immediately following.24 The increasing number of baptisms of young children and the formation of parishes in the countryside, far from the episcopal church, were also conducive to the detachment of confirmation from baptism. Apparently, some uncertainty arose as to the ministers of the distinct rituals. Pope Innocent I gives his opinion on this matter in 416, in a letter to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio. With reference to the text of Acts 8:14, he argues that only the bishops, as successors of the apostles, can administer confirmation, the consignatio. The priests can administer baptism and the postbaptismal anointing, with chrism that has been consecrated by the bishop, but it belongs to the bishop to anoint the candidate on the forehead with chrism as a sign of the transmission of the Holy Spirit.25 Kavanagh considers the appeal to Acts 8 to be selective; it could easily lead to the thought that without episcopal corroboration, the Holy Spirit plays no part in baptism.26 During the following centuries, bishops of Rome have repeatedly called to mind the two rules that only bishops consecrate the chrism and only they administer confirmation. Gregory the Great, however, was of the opinion that in the absence of a bishop, priests may also anoint the forehead with chrism.27 There were undoubtedly various practices on this point. Important testimonies to the liturgy in the city of Rome in the following centuries are the sacramentaria, the Gelasianum Vetus (between 628 and 715) and the Gregorianum Hadrianum (735). Both texts mention anointing with chrism by the bishop. In the absence of the bishop, the anointing is administered at a later time. The one who has been baptized can, however, participate in the Eucharist, even without confirmation.28 With regard to the texts used, we note that during the imposition of hands, the Gelasianum Vetus already uses the prayer Deus omnipotens. This supplicant prayer makes reference to rebirth in baptism and prays for the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. It seems to be an elaboration of  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 194.  “Nam presbyteris, sive extra episcopum, sive praesente episcopo cum baptizant, chrismate baptizatos ungere licet, sed quod ab episcopo fuerit consecratum; non tamen frontem ex eodem oleo signare, quod solis debetur episcopis, cum tradunt Spiritum Paracletum” (DH 215; Patrologia Latina 20, 554f.), cited by Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 195, n. 98. 26  Kavanagh, Confirmation, 57f. 27  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 196. 28  Ibid. 24 25



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

227

the prayer Domine Deus from the Traditio apostolica and is, excepting some details, the same as the prayer during the laying on of hands that was used in the pontificals up to Vatican II and that can also be found in the new Ordo Confirmationis.29 Reference is to the seven gifts of the Spirit in Ambrose and it continues to occur in multiple subsequent texts.30 The Gregorianum Hadrianum, like many other sources, also contains the prayer, but adds a line to it: … et consigna eius signum crucis in vitam propitiatus aeternam, “… and mark him with the sign of the cross unto reconciliation in eternal life.” Originally, this secondary extension may possibly have been a rubric, an instruction for the minister to make the sign of the cross.31 The text remained part of the prayer and was removed during the reform of 1971. Another important text, the formula of the minister during the anointing, had a history of being much more changeable. In the Traditio apostolica, the bishop says: Ungeo te sancto oleo in domino patre omni­ potente et Christo Jesu et spiritu sancto, “I anoint you with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.”32 The Gelasianum Vetus and the other Gelasian sacramentaries read: Signum Christi in vitam aeternam, “Sign of Christ unto eternal life.” In the early West-Frankish pontificals the text becomes richer, among other things due to the expression: Consigno et confimo te signo sanctae crucis…, “I mark and confirm you with the sign of the holy cross.” By way of many variants, the text ultimately becomes what grew to be customary in the second millennium: Signo te signo crucis et confirma te chrismate salutis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, “I mark you with the sign of the cross and confirm you with the oil of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”33 Up to now, we each time saw different combinations of the three acts: laying on hands, anointing, and marking. In the early Middle Ages these three signs, which in the Traditio apostolica were distinct from one another, become increasingly intertwined. Often the laying on of hands is no longer 29  The text from Gelasianum Vetus reads: “Deus omnipotens, pater domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui regenerasti famulos tuos ex aqua et spiritu sancto quique eius remissionum omnium peccatorum; tu domine, inmitte in eos spiritum sanctum tuum paraclytum et da eis spiritum sapientiae et intellectus, spiritum consilii et fortitudinis, spiritum scientiae et pietatis; adimple eos spiritum timoris dei …” 30  Pope Siricius already mentions them in 385, in a letter to bishop Himerius, cited in Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 198. 31  Ibid., 199. 32  Traditio apostolica, in Hippolyte de Rome, La tradition apostolique, ed. Botte, 88. 33  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 199f.

228

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

mentioned separately. The anointing and marking become one single act, a sign of the cross made with chrism on the forehead. The term used for this combination is consignatio. In addition to this, however, the term confirmatio springs up, mainly in the Carolingian era; the term that has become customary up to the present day.34 It can already be found in Faustus of Riez (ca. 410-490), who also takes a further step in formulating the own, separate meaning of confirmation, in a sermon quoted by Kavanagh: In baptism we are born again for life, after baptism we are confirmed for the battle (confirmatur ad pugnam); in baptism we are washed, after baptism we are strengthened (post baptismum roboramur).35

The sources suggest that until after the ninth century, this ceremony generally took place during the Easter vigil, as part of the complete initiation, though it seems unlikely that this was rigorously held to. Administering confirmation was reserved for the bishop, but the dioceses in non-Mediterranean Europe were too extensive to be able to receive this sacrament in time. Most of the faithful lived outside of the cathedral city and were therefore unable to attend the episcopal Easter vigil. A second reason was the wish to baptize children not long after birth, which meant that they no longer waited till Easter.36 Rituals were developed for this independent celebration of confirmation, but it also happened that bishops administered confirmation outside of the church, separate from accompanying rituals, as a kind of blessing. Durand even says that one can confirmare in campo, confirm in the open air, during a journey, but that it is better to do it in ecclesia, in a church building.37 Normally, however, the independent rite of confirmation takes place in a framework of song and prayer. The first example of this is the independent ritual of confirmation in the Pontifical of Konstanz, in the late ninth century.38 From the tenth century onwards, there are the pontificals as they originated in Mainz and later in Rome. The Pontificale Romano-­ Germanicus is the first of these and is dated around 950-962.39 A chapter  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 200.  Kavanagh, Confirmation, 6. 36  Gy, “Histoire liturgique,” 139. 37  Guillelmi Duranti Rationale Divinorum officiorum, V-VI, ed. Davril and Thibodeau, VI, 84,8: “Fieri potest confirmatio in campo, melius tamen fit in ecclesia aut in atrio ecclesie…,” cited by Gy, “Histoire liturgique,” 140. 38  Cited by Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 201. 39  Cyrille Vogel, Introduction aux sources de l’histoire du culte chrétien au Moyen Âge. Réédition anastatique préfacée par Bernard Botte (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Mediaevo, 1975), 187. 34 35



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

229

of this is the Ordo L, a representation of the rituals of the main feasts of the liturgical year. There, confirmation is still described as part of the initiation in the Easter vigil, while for the most part it was probably already celebrated as an independent ritual.40 Of the Roman books, it is not until the “Pontifical of the Roman Curia” of the thirteenth century that an Ordo ad consignandos pueros sive infantes is included for the first time, an “order for the confirmation of children or infants.”41 Then, in 1295, Durand placed an independent confirmation rite at the beginning of the first part of his pontifical, a place that it would also retain after the Council of Trent.42 A few other developments in the ritual of confirmation catch the eye. Around 950, the prayer for the seven gifts of the Spirit was furnished with a fourfold “Amen” as an acclamation.43 The imposition of hands was sometimes done individually per candidate, such as in the Pontificale Romanum XII saec. and the Pontifical of the Roman Curia (thirteenth century), where mention is made of imposita manu super capita singulorum, “the hands imposed above the heads of the individual persons.” Most sources before and after this, however, make mention of spreading out the hand(s) over all the candidates; this is also what Durand opted for.44 This seems to contradict the view of Innocent III in 1208, who attached great value to the personal laying on of hands. In the Professio fidei Waldensibus he wrote: … confirmationem ab episcopo factam, id est impositionem manuum, sanctam et venerande accipiendam censemus, “we judge the confirmation performed by the bishop, that is the imposition of hands, to be sacred and to be accepted with veneration.”45 In Durand’s pontifical we also find, for the first time, two texts that would come to belong to the fixed order of the service up to the reform by the Second 40  Michel Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du haut Moyen Âge. V: Les textes (Ordo 50) (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1961), liturgy of the Easter vigil, c. XXIX, 261-296, confirmation: 289-292. 41  Michel Andrieu, Le Pontifical Romain au Moyen Âge. II: Le Pontifical de la Curie Romaine au XIIIe siècle (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1940), c. XXXIV, 452f. 42  William Durand, Pontificale, in Michel Andrieu, Le Pontifical Romain au MoyenÂge. III: Le Pontifical de Guillaume Durand (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1940), 333-335 (text), 10 (dating); Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 206. 43  Ordines Romani 50, c. XXIX, 73; Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani V, 289. 44  Nocent, “L’ordo confirmationis,” 282f. concludes: “[L’imposition de la main] est cependant réalisée de deux manières: sur tous les confirmands en même temps et cela à partir du début du IIIième siècle jusqu’au X-XIième; sur chacun des confirmands, et cela au XIIième et début du XIIIième siècles.” 45  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 207.

230

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Vatican Council, namely the opening text: Spiritus sanctus superveniat in vos, et virtus Altissimi custodiat vos a peccatis, “May the Holy Spirit come over you and the power of the Most High protect you from sins,” an elaboration of Luke 1:35 and the hymn Confirma Hoc. The prayer Deus qui apostolis already occurs in earlier sources, as does the closing formula Ecce sic benedicetur omnis homo, qui timet Dominum (Ps 127 [128]:4).46 The alapa, a touch or slap on the cheek immediately following the anointment, appears for the first time in Durand. He offers various possible explanations for it, which suggest that he did not introduce the custom himself.47 The pax that accompanied this gesture, on the other hand, is present in many sources from the Traditio apostolica onwards.48 Gy and Schillebeeckx accordingly assume that the touch on the cheek is a substitution for the kiss of peace.49 After Durand, not much changes in the confirmation liturgy. The liturgical reform of the Council of Trent adopts his rite, which also afterwards remains largely the same.50 The Council’s attention is mainly focused on the bishop as the exclusive minister of confirmation. In the eighteenth century, however, a Pontificale Romanum is published in which, in a formulary for the confirmation of a single candidate, the minister’s text during the anointment has been augmented. The underlined words form the addition: N, signo te signo Cru + cis.” Et dum hoc dicit, imposita manu dextera super caput confirmandi, producit pollice signum crucis in fronte(m) illius, deinde prosequitur: “Et confirma te…”, “N. I mark you with the sign of the Cross +. And as he says this, his 46  Both are already found in 950, see Ordines Romani 50, c. XXIX, 76; Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani V, 290 and 291. 47  Durand, Pontificale, 334: “Et deinde dat sibi leviter alapam super genam, dicens: Pax tecum.” Guillelmi Duranti Rationale Divinorum officiorum, V-VI, ed. Davril and Thibodeau, VI, 84.6: “Subsequenter, episcopus confirmatum percutit in facie. Primo, ut tenacius memorie teneat se hoc sacramentum recepisse. Secundo, quia hoc sacramentum datur baptizato ad robur fidei, ut premissum est, ut videlicet sit ita fortis in fide in baptismo suscepta quod ulterius coram quocumque confiteri nomen Christi non erubescat. Tertio, hec percussio representat manus impositionem, quoniam apostoli per manus impositionem confirmabant. Quarto ad terrendum malignum spiritum, ut fugiat et ne redire audiat, sicus fecit beatus Benedictus liberans per alapum monachum qui a maligno spiritu vexabatur, …”; Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 207; Nocent, “L’ordo confirmationis,” 279. 48  Traditio apostolica, in Hippolyte de Rome, La tradition apostolique, ed. Botte, 90. In 950 also in the Pontificale Romano-Germanicus, see Ordines Romani 50, c. XXIX, 73; Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani V, 290. 49  Gy, “Histoire liturgique,” 142; Edward Schillebeeckx OP, “Vormsel,” in Theologisch Woordenboek III (Roermond: Romen, 1958), 4840-4870, at 4867. 50  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 221.



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

231

right hand laid upon the head of the one to be confirmed, he makes the sign of the cross on his forehead with his thumb, and then continues: ‘And I confirm you …’” The rubric gives the minister the instruction to make the sign of the cross on the candidate’s forehead with his thumb, and adds: “while his right hand is laid upon the head of the one to be confirmed.” This extended form existed next to the shorter, basic form for several centuries. It was included in the Roman Ritual in particular.51 This can be imagined in this way, that the four fingers of the right hand rest on the candidate’s head, while at the same time the anointing is done with the thumb. This custom became part of the discussion about the relation between laying on hands and anointing, so that this imposita manu was considered to be the factual imposition of hands, and anointing and laying on hands thus took place in a single, integrated act. As a result, the stretching out of the hands over the candidates while praying for the Holy Spirit which preceded this, naturally lost some of its meaning. Kleinheyer speaks of this as an “irritating” and “problematic” addition to the rubric of the anointing.52 The twentieth century brought the Second Vatican Council, which in the Constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, gave the instruction to renew the rite of confirmation. In advance of this, the Council for Liturgical Reform already offered some directions for the celebration of confirmation in its instruction Inter oecumenici (September 26, 1964). The most important of these are that this sacrament be celebrated during Mass, with the renewal of the baptismal promises preceding it. The ritual, at that point still according to the Roman Pontifical, is also simplified somewhat: immediately following the anointing, only one sign of the cross is made over the one confirmed, instead of three.53 In the meantime, the relevant coetus was working on the reform of the confirmation liturgy. The result of this, the new Ordo, was published in 1971.54 It was preceded by the Apostolic Constitution Divinae Consortium Naturae by Pope Paul VI. The Pope here underscores the 51  Josef Schmitz, “Salbung mit Chrisam auf der Stirn unter Auflegen der Hand: Zum zentralen Gestus der Firmung,” Liturgisches Jahrbuch 27 (1977): 58-62, at 60; Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 221. The author’s observation confirms that this manner of administering formation still occurs. 52  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 227f. 53  “Inter oecumenici,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964): 877-900. 54  Marini, A Challenging Reform, 128f. gives some particulars on the revision of the Ritual and the work of this coetus XXII in 1964. See also Josef Zerndl, Die Theologie der Firmung in der Vorbereitung und in den Akten des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1986).

232

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

biblical origin of confirmation. With some emphasis, and supported by several quotations, it is argued that anointing is the “essential rite” by which confirmation is actually administered. Pope Paul describes how the anointing is to take pride of place and in a sense represents the laying on of hands.55 His concern is apparently that a core rite be designated, the confirmation in the proper sense, that transmits the grace of the sacrament: “The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand …”56 What exactly is meant by this phrasing and how this choice relates to the place and significance of the preceding laying on of hands, will be discussed further in the following section. A second important renewal in this Constitution is that it determines the formula that the minister speaks while conferring confirmation. In Latin, it runs as follows: Accipe signaculum Doni Spiritus Sancti, and in the English translation: “Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit.”57 The explanation that the Pope gives, makes clear that this is a very ancient formula of Byzantine origin, “whereby the Gift of the Holy Spirit himself is expressed and the outpouring of the Spirit which took place on the day of Pentecost is recalled.”58 This twofold decision of the papal magisterium, determining the central act and changing the formula of confirmation, is historically significant.

 “Constitutio Apostolica ‘Divinae Consortium Naturae’,” in Ordo Confirmationis, 13: “… chrismationem, quae apostolicam manuum impositionem quodam modo representat.” 56  Ibid., 14: “Sacramentum Confirmationis confertur per unctionem chrismatis in fronte, quae fit manus impositione, …” 57  Ibid.: “… atque per verba: ‘Accipe signaculum Doni Spiritus Sancti’”; Official American translation 2016, cf. http://www.usccb.org/about/divine-worship/newsletter/ upload/newsletter-2015-04-and-05.pdf (accessed 6 July 2021) 58  “Constitutio Apostolica ‘Divinae Consortium Naturae’,” in Ordo Confirmationis, 13: “… praeferendam censemus antiquissimam formulam ritus Byzantini propriam, qua Donum ipsius Spiritus Sancti exprimitur atque effusio Spiritus die Pentecostes peracta recolitur.” See Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 91 and 229. The text – σφρᾱγΐς δωρεᾱς πνεύματος ἁγίου – according to Bernard Botte, “L’onction postbaptismale dans l’ancien patriarchat d’Antioche,” in Miscellanea liturgica in onore di Sua Eminenza il Card. Giacomo Lercaro, Vol. 2 (Rome: Desclée, 1967), 795-808, at 801f., is first attested in a letter from a patriarch of Constantinople to the metropolitan Martyrius of Antioch (see PG 119, 899) and according to Botte and Kleinheyer was accordingly familiar and customary in both places at the end of the fourth century. Botte, “L’onction postbaptismale,” 803: “Il n’est pas douteux que ce canon n’ait contribué à généraliser l’onction postbaptismale dans l’ancien patriarchat d’Antioche.” See also Balthasar Fischer, “Östliches Erbe in der jüngsten Liturgiereform des Westens,” Liturgisches Jahrbuch 27 (1977): 92-106, at 101. 55



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

233

In the renewed formulary we also find a number of less drastic changes: the Amen-acclamations of the prayer for the Holy Spirit have been removed, as well as the slap on the cheek, and the aforementioned three signs of the cross after the anointment. Furthermore, some of the prayers have been adapted. A more detailed discussion of the reforms of the confirmation liturgy after the Second Vatican Council will follow in the next section. 2.  The Changes to the Confirmation Liturgy The introduction of the new rite for administering the sacrament of confirmation took place on August 22, 1971, the date of the decree of the Congregation for the Liturgy.59 According to the Apostolic Constitution Divinae Consortium Naturae the new ritual was valid immediately, though the old one could still be used for the entire year 1972. From January 1, 1973 onwards, only the new ritual was to be used.60 The changes to the ritual of confirmation that were announced by the Council in December 1963, then, were introduced nine years later. Up to then, the liturgy was celebrated according to the Pontificale and Rituale Romanum, albeit with slight modifications, which were introduced in 1964, after and on the basis of the instruction Inter oecumenici. What changes these were, was described in rough outlines above in the historical overview. They are denoted more precisely in an article by the Congregation for the Liturgy in Notitiae.61 The following ten changes are the most significant: (1) confirmation is celebrated within the context of the Eucharist; (2) the baptismal promises are renewed preceding confirmation; (3) the changes to and surrounding the prayer for the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit; (4) alterations in the place and role of the laying on of hands; (5) the renewal of the text accompanying the anointing; (6) the omission of the postbaptismal anointing if confirmation immediately follows baptism; (7) the abolition of the slap on the cheek; (8) the abolition of the three signs of the cross immediately after the anointing; (9) the adaptation of content and function of the closing prayer; (10) the possibility of priests administering confirmation together with the bishop.  Ordo Confirmationis, 5.  Ordo Confirmationis, 14. 61  Congregatio de Cultu Divino, “De instauratione ordinis Confirmationis,” Notitiae 7 (1971): 352-363. 59

60

234

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

These changes can be grouped as follows. First of all: the changes in the context or circumstances in which confirmation is celebrated (Eucharist, baptismal promises, concelebrating priests); secondly, the adaptations to the prayer and rite of the imposition of hands; thirdly, the change in text and rite during the anointing; fourthly, the abolition or adaptation of other liturgical elements. 1. The Changes in Context and Circumstances In our historical overview, we saw that confirmation gradually came to be celebrated more and more outside of the Easter vigil, in an independent ceremony. An ordo was developed in which confirmation was administered separately from the other sacraments of initiation and also separately from the Mass. In the second millennium of Church history, this was the prevailing practice: the bishop came to a town and there, without the context of Mass, confirmed a larger or smaller number of candidates, primarily children. Care for the rest of initiation, the baptism that preceded it and the first participation in communion, usually also preceding confirmation, was left to the local clergy and their assistants. Nor was the local faith community involved much in this celebration. That confirmation also has a communal aspect was only very little expressed. In the new ritual, celebration within the context of the Eucharist is recommended as the first option because of the close tie between confirmation and the other sacraments of initiation.62 The ritual in the Praenotanda also pleads for inviting the members of the local faith community for this celebration, as an expression of their involvement. It might be added that this involvement is often better expressed if the confirmation takes place during Mass on a Sunday or feast day.63 The renewal of the baptismal promises, the profession of faith, is a recollection of the first phase of initiation, baptism, when (in many cases) parents and godparents professed their faith. This renewal of the faith already professed before, takes place by means of the candidates responding with an “I believe” to the three parts of the Apostles’ Creed, which is phrased in three questions, in a slightly shortened form. The third part, on the Holy Spirit, is adapted to the celebration and reads: Creditis in Spiritum 62  Ordo Confirmationis, praenotanda 13, 20: “Confirmatio fit ex more intra Missam …” 63  Ordo Confirmationis, praenotanda 4, 16f.



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

235

S­ anctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui hodie, per sacramentum Confirmationis, vobis, sicut Apostolis die Pentecostes, singulari modo confertur?, “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who today through the Sacrament of Confirmation is given to you in a special way just as he was given to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost?”64 This hodie is reminiscent of similar liturgical formulations that place the past that is being commemorated in the present. It is a valuable adaptation that makes the current interest of the economy of salvation clear: what once happened to the apostles and the other first believers, is now happening to us. Both these changes are, in general, judged to be positive. In opposition to the fourth stagnation factor, they correct a too onesided, individualistic experience of this sacrament as a channel for the personal administration of grace, and place confirmation in the context of baptism, Eucharist, faith community, and faith. The option of concelebration by those priests that are present, in particular because of the large number of candidates for confirmation, also makes clear that the earlier exclusive emphasis on the bishop as the only minister of this sacrament has been let go of.65 Administering confirmation is still an episcopal task, but the reformed ritual offers plenty of options for bringing in replacements and assistants.66 Whether this change is always an improvement will depend on the practical execution of this guideline. If the consequence is that bishops hardly ever get around to this task, the rule is not an improvement. The Western tradition has attached great importance to the bishop as the minister of this sacrament and because of this has even let it develop into a separate sacrament. The reformed ritual continues to emphasize that the role of the bishop, who represents the whole supralocal Church and is the proper pastor and priest of his diocese, is an essential element of the celebration of confirmation. 2. The Changes to the Imposition of Hands In the New Testament, the imposition of hands together with a prayer for the Holy Spirit seems to be confirmation tout court, as we saw in the historical overview. The Traditio apostolica, the oldest complete Christian initiation ritual that we have at our disposal, has both a laying on  Ordo Confirmationis, 34; The Order of Confirmation, Revised Edition, 2016, 3.  Ordo Confirmationis, praenotanda 8, 18. 66  Ordo Confirmationis, praenotanda 7, 17. 64 65

236

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

of hands and an anointing, and a sign of the cross made by the bishop. From a very early point in history, then, an anointing and a marking with the cross were added to the imposition of hands, and in the West these three seem to have gradually merged. The laying on of hands as a separate gesture, however, along with a prayer for the Holy Spirit, has always been present. Since Ambrose, this is the prayer for the seven gifts of the Spirit, derived from Isaiah 11. The text of this prayer underwent small changes. The addition from the eighth century: et consigna eius signum crucis in vitam propitiatus aeternam, “… and mark him with the sign of the cross unto reconciliation in eternal life,” initially perhaps an instruction for the minister to make the sign of the cross, was added to the prayer and only removed in the reform of 1971. In the Pontificale Romanum XII saeculum this prayer is furnished with an acclamation in the form of a threefold “Amen.” These, too, have been removed, according to Kleinheyer possibly because they often caused confusion in the earlier practice.67 Another change which is also interesting, is the new rubric indicating that before the prayer for the Holy Spirit, all present pray in silence for a few moments: Et omnes per aliquod temporis spatium in silentio orant.68 These last two changes seem to send contradictory signals: the acclamations of the congregation are omitted, while the silent prayer of the congregation is introduced as a liturgical suggestion. Both activities are forms of the active participation of the faithful and appear to be a valuable buttress of the important prayer Deus omnipotens. According to Paul VI, the imposition of hands itself does not belong to the core of the sacramental rite, but “should still be considered to be of great importance with regard to the integrity of the rite and a fuller understanding of the Sacrament.”69 In his constitution, the Pope wished to determine the core, the essence of the sacrament. In sacramental theology, this is usually described with the word pair forma and materia: the words that define the sacramental act and the action or the matter that is defined by the words; together, they constitute the minimal requirement for a valid celebration of the sacrament.70 The sacrament is defined as follows, with a solemn doctrinal pronouncement in the Constitution  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 229: “diese ungewöhnliche Form der Gemeindebeteiligung war in der früheren Praxis oft Anlass zu Misshelligkeiten.” 68  Ordo Confirmationis, 26. 69  Ordo Confirmationis, 14: “Imposito vero manuum super electos, …, etsi ad essentiam ritus sacramentalis non pertinet, est tamen magni aestimanda, utpote quae ad eiusdem ritus integram perfectionem et ad pleniorem Sacramenti intelligentiam conferat.” 70  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III.60.7 resp. and III.78.1 resp. 67



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

237

Divinae Consortium Naturae: Sacramentum confirmationis confertur per unctionem chrismatis in fronte, quae fit manus impositione, atque per verba: “Accipe signaculum Doni Spiritus Sancti”, “The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand, and through the words: ‘Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit’.”71 There has been much discussion about the precise meaning of this most important sentence of the entire constitution, and especially about the quae fit manus impositione.72 Is this a reference to the laying on of hands that preceded the anointing? Or does this text consider the anointing itself as an implicit laying on of hands? In that case, one wonders how to picture this imposition of hands during the anointing and how it relates to the imposition of hands before the anointing. Kleinheyer speaks of an insoluble tension in the confirmation liturgy.73 A. Nocent reacts critically to this phrasing, which he calls vraiment obscure. Is the anointing with the thumb the imposition of the hand?74 Kleinheyer summarizes the result of the debate as follows: The entire context makes clear that what is to be expressed in the decisive sentence is: the laying on of hands is represented by the anointing. One might also say: the laying on of hands has entered into the anointing, has merged with it.75

Nocent argues that this phrasing stems from sacramental theology, which attaches great importance to the distinction between forma and materia. All attention was focused on the forma, the words that determine the act, the materia. Together, these two determine the validity of the sacrament and form the means by which grace is transmitted. The drawback of this focused approach is that the other parts of a sacrament are seen as less important, merely ceremonial or didactic. In the case of confirmation, this means that the imposition of hands, the original New  Ordo Confirmationis, 14.  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 228f. 73  Ibid., 229: “Überdies scheint eine nicht aufhebbare Spannung zu bestehen zwi­ schen die Aussage, das die Handauflegung durch die Chrismation repräsentiert werde, und der Tatsache, dass die – auf den biblischen Gestus verweisende – Handauflegung durchaus erhalten ist und charakterisiert wird als von grosser Bedeutung für die Integrität des Ritus (magni tamen fiat ad integritatem ritus).” Cf. 221f., 227f. See also Bruno Kleinheyer, “Le nouveau rituel de la confirmation,” La Maison-Dieu 110 (1972): 51-71, at 68ff. 74  Nocent, “L’ordo confirmationis,” 281. 75  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 228f.: “Der ganze Kontext macht deutlich, dass im entscheidenden Satz zum Ausdruck kommen soll: Die Handauflegung wird durch die Chrismation repräsentiert. Man könnte auch sagen: Die Handauflegung ist in die Chrismation eingegangen, ist mit ihr verschmolzen.” 71

72

238

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Testament rite, is seen as a concomitant, not indispensable, certainly important but not essential symbol. In this view, according to Nocent, a communal prayer for the coming of the Holy Spirit while laying on hands does not answer to any reality whatsoever, but in this conclusion he seems to go a little to far.76 Imposition of hands and prayer retain their value as prayer of the Church, also within this theology that is so focused on forma and materia. This question is, however, whether this way of thinking does sufficient justice to the liturgical reality. The liturgy of a sacrament is a compound of interconnected elements, which cannot be detached from one another. An overemphasis on what is necessary for the validity of a sacrament fails to do justice to the whole of the celebration. The prayerful, didactic, and grace-imparting elements of a celebration cannot be isolated from each other. In this spirit Nocent’s argument can be accepted against merging the imposition of hands and the anointing, to instead consider them together, each in their distinctiveness, as the sacrament, and to adapt the Ordo as follows “The sacrament of confirmation is conferred by the laying on of hands and the anointing on the forehead.”77 A final theme with regard to the imposition of hands lies in the manner in which this is performed. Rubric 25 only says: manus super omnes confirmandos imponunt, “lay hands upon all the candidates,” a clarification compared to the old ceremonial: Tunc extensis versus confirmandos manibus, “extends his hands towards the candidates.”78 Whether this laying on of hands is done to each of the candidates individually or the whole group together is not mentioned in either the old or the new ritual. Historically, the imposition of hands was usually done by the bishop raising one or both hands over the candidates present. Only two pontificals, those of the twelfth and thirteenth century, mention imposita manu super capita singulorum, “the hands imposed above the heads of the individuals,” as we saw above. No theological explanation has been handed down for this exception. Nocent offers the hypothesis that the two pontificals were reacting to a certain decrease in value of the imposition of hands. By administering this personally to the individual candidates, it of course gains a greater emphasis.79 Along with Nocent and  Nocent, “L’ordo confirmationis,” 281.  Ibid., 289: “Sacramentum confirmationis confertur per manus vel manuum impositionem et unctionem in fronte cum verbis: Accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti.” 78  Ordo Confirmationis, 26; Pontificale Romanum, De confirmandis, 2. 79  Nocent, “L’ordo confirmationis,” 284. 76 77



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

239

Kleinheyer,80 we consider it as a deficiency of this liturgical reform that the possibility of a personal imposition of hands, if the size of the group allows it, was not included. These reforms regarding the laying on of hands do not really seem to have the aim of solving a stagnation in the liturgy, with the exception of the silent prayer of the congregation. The proposal of this prayer can be considered as an answer to the fourth stagnation factor, the sense of community. 3. The Changes to the Anointing It was during the Council that the first changes were already made to the ritual of confirmation, especially, as already noted, the abolition of the three signs of the cross immediately after the anointing. Here the principle of clarity, simplicity, and the avoidance of repetitions was directive. A much more important change was, of course, the replacement of the central text. In the Constitution, Pope Paul VI only very briefly mentions the reason for replacing the formula of confirmation. He states that the revision of the rite of confirmation should also extend in a harmonious way to “the essence itself of the sacramental rite.” He expresses appreciation for the Latin formula which has been handed down. He believes, however, that preference must be given to a venerable formula from the Byzantine tradition, which refers more explicitly to the Holy Spirit as a gift and thus to Pentecost.81 Our historical overview showed that plenty of variation occurred in the Western tradition. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the Pope decided to replace an ancient, nuclear text of a sacrament with a text of Byzantine origin. A few remarks on this. Kleinheyer states, to my mind correctly, that the formula that was used up to the reform had little substance. Whether this is sufficient reason to change it, remains to be seen. The new text that was chosen, however, which mentions the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, is to the point, theologically sound, and spiritually rich. It is, moreover, a meaningful ecumenical gesture to acknowledge the liturgical tradition of the Eastern Churches and draw from it for a sacramental celebration of the Latin rite. This reform can be seen as an improvement of the accessibility of the symbolism of confirmation, which therefore has bearing on the second stagnation factor. 80  Bruno Kleinheyer, “Ein Stück nicht verwirklichter Liturgiereform: Zur doppelten ‘Zeichenkraft’ des Firmritus,” Liturgisches Jahrbuch 36 (1986): 58-64, at 61-64. 81  Ordo Confirmationis, 14: “… ad ipsam etiam ritus sacramentalis essentiam congruenter pertineat.”

240

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

4. The Changes to Certain Other Liturgical Elements While not directly belonging to the confirmation liturgy, the related question of the post-baptismal anointing must be included in this consideration. Nocent drew attention to the rule that we find in the new ordines for the baptism of children and adults,82 namely that the postbaptismal anointing is omitted if confirmation is administered immediately after baptism.83 In other words: in the renewed liturgy the two anointings are not performed one after the other; the customary anointing after baptism only takes place if confirmation does not immediately follow. The postbaptismal anointing has ancient credentials and is already mentioned in the Traditio apostolica, where it is combined with the anointing of confirmation. Each of the two anointings has its own meaning. In Ambrose they also both occur, the first immediately after baptism, the second some time later together with the prayer for the Spirit.84 The prayer that he quotes is in fact largely identical to the traditional text of the Rituale Romanum and to the first half of the current prayer. This renewed prayer from the revised Ordo Baptismi Parvulorum reads: Deus omnipotens, Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui vos a peccato liberavit et regeneravit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, ipse vos linit chrismate salutis, ut, eius aggregati populo, Christi sacerdotis, prophetae et regis membra permaneatis in vitam aeternam,85 in English: “The God of power and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has freed you from sin and brought you to new life through water and the Holy Spirit. He now anoints you with the chrism of salvation, so that, united with his people, you may remain for ever a member of Christ who is Priest, Prophet, and King.”86 In the renewed liturgy of baptism, the last sentence was added. This lent the prayer an ecclesial dimension. It asks that those who were baptized and have become a part of God’s people, remain for ever members of Christ, who is priest, prophet, and king. The threefold office of Christ, in which the believer shares through baptism and which is made explicit in the anointment, is the basis of this “being a member of the 82  Ordo initiationis christianae adultorum, in Rituale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP.VI promulgatum, ed. typ. altera (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1972), no. 223, 85 and no. 263, 101. Ordo baptismi parvulorum, in Rituale Romanum, ed. typ. altera, no. 22, 24. 83  Nocent, “L’ordo confirmationis,” 284-286. 84  Ambrose, De sacramentis II.7.24. 85  Ordo baptismi parvulorum, no. 62, 32. 86  The Rites of the Catholic Church, vol. 1 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), 388.



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

241

people of God.” The believer shares in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly office of Christ, on the basis of which he or she performs the mission of Christians in the Church and the world.87 It is clear that this prayer has a distinct and important function, which does not coincide with the anointing of confirmation. It is therefore not really obvious that this prayer should be omitted when confirmation immediately follows. A second liturgical element of the renewed liturgy of confirmation is the transformation of the touch or slap on the cheek after the anointment into a pax. As we saw above, since Durand the old liturgy included a light slap by the minister on the cheek of the one being confirmed, combined with a spoken wish of peace. The fact that the liturgical books before Durand do not mention this gesture, need not imply that there was no preceding tradition. It may be a rudiment of the greeting of peace that the Traditio apostolica already mentions, and which also occurs in the Pontificale Romano-Germanicum of 950, immediately following the anointment of confirmation.88 Schillebeeckx simply and decidedly interprets the gesture as a greeting of peace.89 Traditionally a few other possible interpretations of the alapa are mentioned, among which is the accolade of the knight. It is clear that the gesture in itself was ambiguous and that perhaps contributed to its mysteriousness in the eyes of the young confirmation candidates.90 The renewed liturgy returned to the oldest sources and opted for a pax given by the bishop to the candidate. Concretely, this means that the text, with the omission of the preposition (Pax tibi, “peace be with you” instead of Pax tecum), has hardly changed, but that the accompanying gesture of a slap on the cheek is no longer mentioned. Neither is a new gesture proposed. Usually, a handshake or an accolade will be chosen here. The final significant element of change concerns the solemn prayer Deus qui apostolis that closes the whole of the confirmation rite. As we saw above, it has belonged to the confirmation liturgy since at least 950. 87  Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995), nos. 897-913; cf. Pope John Paul II, Postsynodal apostolic exhortation Christifideles Laici, On the vocation and the mission of the lay faithful in the church and in the world, 14, 23; http:// www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_ exh_30121988_christifideles-laici.html (accessed 7 July 2021). 88  Traditio apostolica, in Hippolyte de Rome, La tradition apostolique, ed. Botte, 90. 89  Schillebeeckx, “Vormsel,” 4867: “With a slight, rather caressing than slapping touch of the confirmant’s cheek the bishop gives the Pax” (trans. by author). 90  Personal observation suggests that this slap on the cheek was one of the best remembered elements of the old confirmation ceremony; it is unclear whether this was experienced in a positive or a negative sense.

242

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Up to the early 1970s, the Roman Pontifical preserved the identical prayer, in which reference is made to the apostles and their successors, through whom the Spirit is also given to the other faithful. The prayer then asks that the hearts of the confirmation candidates be perfected as temples of the glory of the Holy Spirit. In the revised liturgy, the prayer has been shortened and the second part in particular has been made more general. The prayer is now for all the faithful. The references to the apostles and their successors in the first part of the prayer were retained. The prayer is now used as the conclusion of the oratio universalis, which is said directly after the administration of confirmation. The changes thus concern the abbreviation of the text and the new function as concluding prayer. 3.  Evaluation of the Reforms In the course of the centuries, the sacrament of confirmation developed into an independently celebrated ceremony in the Western Church, more or less separate from the other sacraments of initiation and from the faith community. The symbolism and the communal nature of this sacrament were consequently not optimally experienced, in line with the second and fourth stagnation factors. The first stagnation factor also played a part: the role of sacred Scripture had been minimalized. The Council’s intention was to correct these developments. Furthermore, the reformers wished to make both the texts and the rituals more clearly understandable, particularly with reference to confirmation as sacrament of the Holy Spirit. Within the context of the general desire for simplification, texts and rituals were also omitted if they were seen as less important. To attain these goals, a number of liturgical reforms were chosen which, as shown, can be divided into four groups. First: the adaptations in the context or circumstances in which confirmation is celebrated; second: the reforms of prayer and rite during the imposition of hands; third: the change in text and rite of the anointment; and fourth: the abolition or adaptation of other liturgical elements. The four evaluation criteria can now be applied to each group of reforms. 1. Is Christ’s Reality of Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy? First of all, with regard to context, how is the Christological dimension shown in the reforms? In general, confirmation is celebrated within the



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

243

framework of the Mass, the celebration of the remembrance of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. This means that Christ is represented and made present in the liturgy of the Word and of the sacrament. In strengthening the role of sacred Scripture, the first stagnation factor is corrected. The reference to baptism, through the renewal of the baptismal promises, also provides a Christological emphasis; this is, after all, a death and resurrection with Christ. The confirmation candidates’ attention is drawn to their connection with Christ by the reference to baptism and Eucharist. The salvific reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit is thus clarified as a gift of Christ. This context of Eucharist and baptism brings the Christological dimension to the fore more explicitly. It could possibly also be a first step in the direction of a greater unity between the three sacraments of initiation and a maintaining of their original order. The imposition of hands with its accompanying prayer centers entirely around the Holy Spirit. The new introduction to this prayer (Oremus dilectissimi), however, is of a trinitarian nature. The text is, after all, addressed to the Father, prays for the descent of the Holy Spirit for all who are baptized, and asks for that Spirit to anoint them to become like Christ. The pneumatic event of the laying on of hands, together with the prayer for the seven gifts of the Spirit, is in this way closely linked to Christ. In the prayer for those seven gifts as well, of old addressed to the almighty God, the phrase Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi, “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” is now added. The Christological nature of this part of the celebration, then, has been strengthened. In the ritual of anointing, as we saw, the formula has been radically changed. In the past, a trinitarian text was used there, as well as there being the explicit reference to the cross of the Lord in making the sign of the cross on the candidate’s forehead. In the reformed ritual, these references to Christ have disappeared. Mention is made, however, of the Donum Spiritus Sancti, “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” which is often translated as “the gift of God.” According to the Western theological tradition, one could argue that the term “gift” refers to the Son, because the Spirit is the gift of Father and Son. This dimension, however, remains extremely implicit in the confirmation liturgy, so that we have to conclude that the Christological dimension has practically disappeared here. We here draw the conclusion that, somewhat paradoxically, the prayer for the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit has gained a more Christological character, whereas the text during the anointing, which in the past made reference to Christ and the Trinity, now has been given a pneumatological accent.

244

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Among the remaining liturgical elements, in the possible omission of the postbaptismal anointing, there is an elision of an important Christological text. As argued above, this prayer emphasizes the inclusion in the body of Christ and sharing in his mission. The option of omitting this prayer when confirmation takes place immediately after baptism means the removal of an important aspect of Christ’s reality of salvation. The slap on the cheek and the closing prayer did not contain any reference to Christ, so that leaving them out does not result in any change on this point. Taking all this into account, we can conclude that in general, the reference to Christ has been strengthened in the liturgical context and in the prayer during the imposition of hands. In the text accompanying the anointing and in the other liturgical elements we observe a lessening of Christological references. The strengthening, however, carries more weight, because the matter of the postbaptismal anointing does not play a part in every celebration of confirmation, but only when the sacraments of initiation are combined. 2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant? The second evaluation criterion asks after the intelligibility and relevance of the renewed liturgy in the case of the four areas of reform of the confirmation liturgy. What was true of the other case studies of course also applies here, namely that intelligibility and relevance always presuppose that one shares the faith being celebrated. The sacramental ritual will be difficult or impossible to understand for those who do not acknowledge the Christian significance of the sacrament of confirmation. First: do the new rules for the context in which confirmation is administered solve the stagnation that occurred in the old confirmation liturgy, and do they improve its intelligibility and the possibility of experiencing this celebration as being relevant? The answer to this question partly depends on one’s view on the meaning of this sacrament and, in connection with this, on the age at which confirmation is conferred. If it is celebrated around the time of first communion, during childhood, its significance is different than if it is received at the age of twelve or eighteen, at the beginning or completion of maturity. In all these cases, the recommendations to renew the baptismal promises and celebrate confirmation in the context of the Mass and in the midst of the faith community will still apply. At any age, this context is helpful in



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

245

­ nderstanding the sacrament as a sacrament of initiation, a fulfillment u of baptism, as an expression of faith and a confirmation of belonging to the community of the Church. The aspect of the gift of the Spirit had always been clear, but is supplemented in this sense. The aspects of initiation, faith, and community are a protection against the risk of ritualism and individualism and can therefore be considered relevant. One sees therefore that in many parishes confirmation is combined with involving the candidate in the activities of the parish and is occasion for catechetical formation. Second, do the reforms to the prayer and rite in the laying on of hands improve intelligibility of the sacrament? There are two acts here: the call to a few moments of silent prayer, which makes the congregation collaborators in the sacramental act, and the option of physically laying hands on each candidate separately, which tangibly underscores the gift of God’s Spirit. Both acts enhance the symbolic power of the imposition of hands and therefore also increase the intelligibility of this sign. They also clarify the relevance of receiving the gift of the power of the Spirit of God. Third, in the reform of the ritual of anointing there is the new formula spoken while the forehead is marked with chrism. This formula is short but succinct and rich in content. In it, the minister of confirmation says that the candidate receives God’s great gift, God himself as Holy Spirit who grants the human person his seven gifts. The call Accipe …, “receive …” is important, because it asks for an active receptiveness that does not hinder the gift of the Spirit. The term “seal,” finally, expresses something of a belonging to, it is a sign of being God’s property.91 More than the formula used previously, this expresses what the sacrament of confirmation does to the human person. Here, too, the ritual has become more understandable and meaningful. Finally the disappearance of the alapa, the slap on the cheek, the meaning of which was not entirely clear, can be viewed as an improvement with regard to intelligibility and relevance. One might wonder, however, whether the reformers were not thinking too rationally here. An act that is tangible and intriguing, albeit open to multiple interpretations, can after all still be experienced as meaningful. The various interpretations of this gesture (being strengthened, not being ashamed to bear witness to Christ, expulsion of evil, knightly accolade, declaration of coming of age, pax92) can be considered different aspects of c­ onfirmation.  Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1296.  Kleinheyer, Die Feiern der Eingliederung, 207f.

91

92

246

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

In this sense, we may view the slap on the cheek as an ambiguous “explanatory rite,” provided that its significance is communicated. In the new rite the pax does consist of a spoken wish, but not of a gesture. It has consequently lost its interpreting, signifying function and has become a one-dimensional greeting. The shortening of the solemn closing prayer Deus qui apostolis led to a simplification of the phrasing. Moreover, the renewed text also makes a connection with the proclamation of the gospel on Pentecost. The prayer that the Holy Spirit makes the believer a temple of God’s glory has made way for the following wording: “… that by your grace your Spirit lives in all the faithful, as it did during the first proclamation of the gospel.” This simplification and reference to Pentecost zooms in on what is essential and can therefore promote the intelligibility and relevance of the celebration. All in all, with the exception of the loss of the alapa, the celebration of confirmation has gained in clarity and can more easily be considered relevant. 3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy? The third evaluation criterion concerns the continuity of a particular liturgical celebration throughout the centuries and its identity. The historical overview already indicated to a certain extent how much development took place in the ritual of confirmation in the course of history. Kavanagh even speaks of constant change and reinterpretation.93 The variations are indeed considerable in this sacrament. Its celebration changes from part of the initiation rite of the ancient Church into an independent sacrament of the gift of the Spirit, from completion of the baptism of children into a sacrament of coming of age. There are, however, a few main elements that can be distinguished which keep recurring and are apparently characteristic of confirmation: the link with baptism, the imposition of hands (sometimes rudimentary), prayer for grace or the gift of the Spirit, anointing and marking with chrism. Besides this, there are the rites and prayers that have been connected with the conferral of confirmation in the Latin rite since the sixth century, as part of the solemnity of initiation during the Easter vigil and increasingly as an independent celebration at other times during the year. Both the fixed  Kavanagh, Confirmation, p. x: “Thus the long history of this rite, which is filled with constant change and reinterpretation, continues unabated in its wandering course.” 93



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

247

elements and the variations in the manner of celebrating this sacrament belong to the transmitted form, the monument of tradition of the confirmation liturgy. This makes the application of this criterion more difficult here. The identity of the confirmation liturgy according to the Roman rite has to be determined, then, by asking after the fixed elements and also the possible variants that there have been in the course of history. Is the reformed rite of confirmation an expression of the same liturgy as that of previous generations? None of the liturgical circumstances in which confirmation is celebrated, i.e. the renewal of the baptismal promises by the candidates, the celebration as part of the Mass, and the possibility for priests to (co-)administer the sacrament, are really new. The first two are a partial restoration of confirmation as part of the sacraments of initiation, the initiation ritual that the ancient Church performed during the Easter vigil. A later, legitimate, variant, the separate celebration of confirmation, is not prohibited but is relegated to second place. The Council asked for preference to be given to the older variant, the connection of confirmation with baptism and Eucharist, so that “the very close connection of this sacrament with the whole process of Christian initiation may become more clearly visible.”94 As a result of the acknowledgement of two options, the revised Ordo Confirmationis accordingly offers a Ordo ad confirmationem intra missa conferendam, a rite for conferring confirmation within the Mass, in chapter 1, and in chapter 2 a Ordo ad confirmationem sine missa conferendam, a rite for conferring confirmation outside of Mass.95 The really new thing here is that the Church gives both these variants a place in the official ceremonial. The ancient practice of both variants has thus been acknowledged and sanctioned. Next, we consider the ample opportunity for priests to co-administer this sacrament, both in the presence of the bishop, assisting him, and in his absence, administering it on his behalf. Above, we already saw that the Western tradition sets great store by confirmation being celebrated by the bishop. Only vicars, abbots, or other prelates could replace him when necessary.96 The Council did not take a stance on the minister of confirmation, but the possibilities for priests to administer this sacrament were broadened.97 In the Byzantine rite, this task has long been 94   Sacrosanctum Concilium 71, for the Latin text see above, note 3; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *833. 95  Ordo Confirmationis, 23 and 31. 96  Codex Iuris Canonici 1917 (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis), 1951, c. 782. 97  Ordo Confirmationis, praenotanda, 7 and 8, at 17f.

248

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

performed by priests, but in the Roman rite this is new. The motives for this are of a practical or pastoral nature: they concern the number of candidates or the close involvement of the priest in question with the candidates.98 In principle, the possibility of priests of the Roman rite administering confirmation has never been denied. For this reason, it cannot be stated that this reform violates the identity of the confirmation liturgy. It is rather a substantial broadening within the existing framework. The reforms in prayer and rite of the imposition of hands are modest. The introduction and the prayer are slightly supplemented and freed of accretions, there is an invitation to silent prayer by the congregation, the endorsing “Amens” by the people are removed. The rubric for the imposition of hands now mentions laying on hands rather than extending them. None of these reforms constitute an erosion of the identity of the rite. On the contrary, they make its intention come to the fore more clearly. Only the omission of the acclamations to the prayer for the Holy Spirit does not appear to be an improvement. The main change made in the reform of the rite of anointment lies in the formula that is said. There is no precedent within the history of confirmation for the choice for the Byzantine text. In general, however, there has often been a reciprocity between the different rites in the course of history. As determined in section VI.3, the boundaries between rites are not absolute. On the basis of this principle, this is not so much an erosion, but rather an enhancement of the Western rite of confirmation. The remaining liturgical elements are the possible omission of the postbaptismal anointing, the disappearance of the slap on the cheek, and the change to the closing prayer. The first of these three, the omission of the anointing after baptism when confirmation is administered immediately afterwards, cannot be regarded as a violation of the rite, since for centuries there was no joint rite of Christian initiation. However, based on the ancient Christian practice of, for instance, the Traditio apostolica, no reason can be found for this omission. The rubric in the Ordo for the baptism of adults that prescribes the omission of this act, cannot be considered a violation of the rite of confirmation, but may be seen as an undesirable and unwarranted curtailment of the initiation rite. The omission of the slap on the cheek however, a characteristic gesture in the Roman rite, can be considered an injury, albeit a minor one, to the ritual of confirmation. What may originally have been a pax and in the  Ordo Confirmationis, praenotanda, 8, at 18.

98



CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY OF CONFIRMATION

249

feudal Middle Ages gained, among other things, the denotation of a knight’s accolade, was a meaningful “explanatory rite.” The abbreviation and adaptation of the closing prayer is a modest intervention which certainly cannot be considered a violation of the rite. On the basis of the third evaluation criterion, only the reform of omitting the slap on the cheek constitutes a slight erosion of the rite of confirmation. The other reforms are, to a greater or lesser extent, in line with the preceding, varied Western tradition of celebrating the sacrament of confirmation. In other words: they belong to the liturgical monument of tradition of confirmation. 4. Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development? As we saw above, the new confirmation rite was introduced on 22 August, 1971. In 1972 both the old and the new ritual were open for use, but starting from 1 January 1973, only the reformed confirmation liturgy was permitted to be celebrated. The most striking changes: the introduction of the renewal of the baptismal promises, the setting within the Mass, the new formula of confirmation, and the disappearance of the alapa, were thus to be introduced everywhere in a short space of time. There has been little research on the reception of the new confirmation liturgy, but because this celebration does not occur very frequently in a community and its details are not generally known, it is likely that the changes did not make a great impression. It is mainly the ministers of confirmation, who experience this liturgy often by virtue of their profession, who will have clearly recognized the changes and their consequences. It is understandable that unity and certainty with regard to the central formula of confirmation was desirable, so that in this matter a general introduction date was important. Other changes could conceivably have been introduced more slowly. There was, accordingly, no gradual development in the introduction of the renewed confirmation liturgy. One might say that this fourth criterion is of less importance in the case of the liturgy of confirmation. The changes were not revolutionary and the most substantial reforms were, in general, evaluated positively. Nevertheless, there was criticism, as we saw. This criticism mainly concerned the obscurity of the text of Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution, in which anointing and laying on hands were amalgamated in a way that raised many questions. Various critics pointed out that this caused the rite of laying on hands itself to have insufficient importance. It might be asked whether the Pope was

250

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

right in committing himself in a constitution on a point that apparently needed more reflection and contemplation, and therefore time. Was the need for legal clarity with regard to the heart of the sacrament, in particular because of the forma sacramentis, the cause of too much haste in this case? In the case of the disappearance of the alapa, perhaps it would have been better if this was made optional, so that the practice over the course of the years would make clear whether the gesture was still or could again be considered meaningful. All in all, with regard to the fourth criterion delaying the final choice would have been desirable on some points. Conclusions The four evaluation criteria have provided a balanced picture with respect to the reforms of the confirmation liturgy. Not all the changes resulted in a strengthening of the Christological elements, but on balance they nevertheless gained a greater emphasis. We also saw that the intelligibility and potential relevance of the celebration of confirmation has been improved. With regard to the identity of the celebration, the extent to which it has remained itself, we also come to a positive evaluation, partly due to the fact that the celebration has had many variations throughout history. While not resulting in any problems for the main liturgical elements, it is hard to conclude that the implementation was gradual. On two particular points, however, a more gradual approach to the implementation would have been desirable. Balancing the four evaluation criteria one concludes that the reforms in themselves were good, but would have been better received and accepted if they had been introduced as a form of a process of tradition, spread out over a longer time period. The reform of the liturgy of a sacrament such as confirmation has many particular characteristics, distinct from other forms of liturgy, including the Church’s necessity or need to guarantee the validity of the sacrament and determine its essential core. In this situation, too, the four evaluation criteria have served well in weighing the quality of the reforms.

Chapter X

The Reform of the Solemnity of Epiphany Introduction This chapter considers, as a case study among the reforms to the calendar the solemnity of Epiphany, also called the “Epiphany of the Lord,” which is celebrated by the Church on 6 January. This is one of the oldest liturgical feast days and probably arose in Egypt in the course of the third century.1 In the East it was and is mainly the baptism of the Lord that is commemorated on this day, whereas in the West the adoration by the Magi takes center stage. The birth of Jesus and the wedding at Cana are also celebrated on this day or are connected with it. The theme of Jesus’s self-revelation, his appearance to the faithful or to the peoples, is apparently not exclusive to one particular story in the gospels. In the Roman tradition, the feast was always overshadowed by Christmas. Its plural nature was pushed into the background, because both subsidiary topics, the baptism of the Lord and the wine miracle at Cana, were very soon already celebrated separately on other days. This study limits itself to the formulary of the Mass. A thorough consideration of the liturgy of the hours and the various forms of popular piety is beyond the scope here. The reform of the Mass formulary offers sufficient points for evaluation. At first glance, however, there seems to be nothing remarkable about this feast as a case study for liturgical reform. A comparison between the Mass formularies for this feast in the Missal of Trent (1570) and the Missal of Vatican II (1970), down to the third edition (2002), does not reveal many and/or drastic changes.  Hansjörg Auf der Maur, “Epiphanie,” in Feiern im Rhythmus der Zeit. I: Herrenfeste in Woche und Jahr, ed. Hansjörg Auf der Maur, Gottesdienst der Kirche: Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft 5 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1983), 154-164, at 156. See also Bernard Botte, Les origines de la Noël et de l’Épiphanie (Leuven: Peeters, 1932); Hans Förster, Die Anfänge von Weihnachten und Epiphanias: Eine Anfrage an die Entstehungshypothesen, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum / Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity 46 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). 1

252

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

The limited and inconspicuous changes, however, turn out to be significant and therefore form an interesting example of liturgical reforms. This chapter follows the same format as in the prior case studies: that is first, a short overview of the history of the feast (1); next, observing the changes, understood as reforms, in the Mass formulary of this feast during the half century before and especially after the Second Vatican Council, between 1955 and 2015 (2). Thirdly, an evaluation of these reforms is performed, making use of the four criteria (3). 1. History The earliest mention of something that resembles the feast of Epiphany can be found in a short quote in the Stromateis by Clement of Alexandria, which he wrote around the year 200.2 There, he mentions the gnostic sect of the followers of Basilides, which in the second century already celebrated the baptism of Jesus on the 6th of January.3 In their view, Jesus’s baptism was the moment of the birth of the divine Logos, the mergence of the human nature with the divine nature of Christ, the marriage between heaven and earth.4 It is unknown when exactly most Christians began to celebrate this feast, but it is generally assumed that its origin lies in Egypt, at some time in the second half of the third century. Both Jesus’s birth and his baptism were central on this day.5 In the course of the fourth century, the feast spread into Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. Due to the conflict between the followers of Arius and the adherents of the divine nature of Christ, less of an emphasis was placed on the baptism of Jesus, which was often interpreted in an adoptionist sense. In opposition to the Arians, Christ’s unity of essence with the Father was stressed, and in extension both Christmas and Epiphany became manifestations of Christ’s divine nature.6 From the very beginning, Epiphany had a plural theme, in which the baptism of the Lord 2  Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis I, in Clément d’Alexandrie, Stromateis, Sources Chrétiennes 30 (Paris: Cerf, 1951), 21,146, p. 150. 3  Paul F. Bradshaw and Maxwell E. Johnson, The Origins of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons in Early Christianity (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011), 137f.; Elpidius Pax, “Epiphanie,” in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum V, 832-906, col. 904; Susan Roll, Toward the Origins of Christmas (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 21996), 77f.; Thomas J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year (New York: Pueblo, 1986), 118-120. 4  Auf der Maur, “Epiphanie,” 156. 5  Bradshaw and Johnson, The Origins of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons, 141. 6  Ibid., 145.



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

253

played a central part and the sacrament of baptism, enlightenment, was celebrated. For this reason, it was called Denha, “dawn of the light,” in Syria and τὰ φῷτα, “the lights,” in Cappadocia.7 The feast may thus have developed as a celebration of the manifestation of the divine light that enlightens every human person, both through Christ’s coming on earth and through his baptism in the Jordan.8 A clear testimony, that can be dated around 420, is found in Cassian’s Collationes, where he writes: In the country of Egypt this custom is by ancient tradition observed that – when Epiphany is past, which the priests of that province regard as the time, both of our Lord’s baptism and also of His birth in the flesh, and so celebrate the commemoration of either mystery not separately as in the Western provinces but on the single festival of this day, – letters are sent from the Bishop of Alexandria through all the Churches of Egypt, by which the beginning of Lent, and the day of Easter are pointed out not only in all the cities but also in all the monasteries.9

In the last quarter of the fourth century, Egeria, too, mentioned the festive celebration of Epiphany in the night of 5 and 6 January in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and the continuation of that celebration for eight days. She particularly offered an elaborate description of the beautiful decorations of the churches, which underscores that the feast was considered to be important. Unfortunately, there is a page missing from the manuscript of her story, so that the description of what was celebrated has been lost.10 Making use of additional information from the Armenian Lectionary and the letter to the Armenians, a convincing argument has been made that in Jerusalem as well, both the birth and the baptism of Jesus were celebrated on this day.11  Bradshaw and Johnson, The Origins of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons, 143 and 149.  “Il ne paraît donc invraisemblable, que la fête de l’Épiphanie a grandi comme la fête de la Manifestation du Seigneur, de l’apparition du Christ comme la Lumière divine qui éclaire tous les hommes.” Antonius J. Vermeulen, “Le développement sémasiologique d’Epiphaneia et la fête de l’Épifanie,” in Graecitas et Latinitas Christianorum primaeva. Supplementa 1 (Nijmegen: Dekker, 1964), 7-44, at 43. 9  John Cassian, Collationes 10,2, in Jean Cassien, Conférences VIII-XVII: introd., texte latin, trad. et notes, ed. Étienne Pichery, Sources Chrétiennes 54 (Paris: Cerf, 1958), 75: “Intra Aegypti regionem mos iste antiqua traditione servatur, ut peracta Epiphaniorum die, quem provinciae illius sacerdotes vel dominici baptismi vel secundum carnem nati­ vitatis esse definiunt et idcirco utriusque sacramenti sollemnitatem non bifarie ut in occiduis provinciis, sed sub una diei huius festivitate concelebrant, …”; trans.: The Conferences of John Cassian, trans. and notes Edgar C.S. Gibson, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (New York, 1894), 172f. 10  Egeria, Itinerarium Egeriae, in Égérie, Journal de Voyage, ed. Maraval, 250-257. 11  Bradshaw and Johnson, The Origins of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons, 146-149. 7 8

254

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

In the West, this feast first penetrated in Gaul, certainly from 361 onwards, and after that in Spain (before 380).12 In Gaul, it was first celebrated under the names Adventus or Apparitio and later T ­ heophania. There, it was most influenced by the Eastern view on this feast. Both the baptism of the Lord and the adoration of Him by the magi, as well as the wedding at Cana, were commemorated on this day. This triple revelation of the Lord is expressed in the Benedictus-antiphon which even today can still be found in the liturgy of the hours. The text reads: Today the Bridegroom claims his bride, the Church, since Christ has washed her sins away in Jordan’s waters; the Magi hasten with their gifts to the royal wedding; and the wedding guests rejoice, for Christ has changed water into wine, alleluia.13

According to H. Frank, the antiphon is of Roman origin but its background can be traced to Gaul and ultimately Syria.14 This antiphon ingeniously links the three “miracles” by placing them in the framework of the wedding feast of Christ and the Church.15 At the same time, they are placed in the “present” of the liturgy, which in the “now” of the celebration connects past and future.16 In Western Europe, against the wishes of Rome, Epiphany became an opportunity to celebrate baptism, a baptismal feast in the winter as an alternative for Easter, with its own six week period of preparation, the season of advent, which to the present day bears the name of the Gallican feast of Epiphany.17 Ireland and Northern Italy also started to celebrate it. Under Eastern influence, this feast was thus introduced in the West, not  According to some, this happened by way of Northern Italy, see Pax, “Epiphanie,”

12

903.

13  “Hodie caelesti sponso iuncta est Ecclesia, quoniam in Jordane lavit Christus eius crimina; currunt cum muneribus magi ad regales nuptias; et ex aqua facta vino laetantur convivae, alleluia.” Translation taken from the English book of hours. 14  Hieronymus Frank OSB, “Hodie caelesti sponso iuncta est Ecclesia: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Idee des Epiphaniefestes,” in Vom christlichen Mysterium: Gesammelte Arbeiten zum Gedächtnis von Odo Casel OSB, ed. Anton Mayer, Johannes Quasten, and Burkhard Neunheuser (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1951), 192-226, at 218. 15  The connection between the tria miracula is also made in a few other texts, such as the hymn Hostis Herodes and the Magnificat-antiphon Tribus miraculis, in which the triple hodie is emphasized, which suggests a simultaneity of the three signs. 16  Cf. Odo Casel OSB, “‘Hodie’,” La Maison-Dieu 65 (1961): 127-132, at 127: “… Dieu nous a donné la possibilité d’entrer déjà maintenant, dès ici-bas, dans son immuable présent et dans l’éternel aujourd’hui. Il nous le rend possible grâce au mystère du culte.” 17  Not until about the year 600 did Advent become the time of preparation for the feast of Christmas, which predominated starting from Rome.



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

255

so much as the commemoration of a historical event, but as a mystery feast. The theme of water also comes to the fore in the practice of the consecration of the water which Gaul adopted from the East and the custom of the blessing of the homes. Initially, Rome and Northern Africa only had historical feasts, and they had already given Christmas a fixed place in the calendar since 336. Reluctantly, the feast of Epiphany was adopted there as well, but the content of the feast was solely the adoration by the magi and in connection with this, the revelation of Christ to all peoples. Augustine (late fourth century) emphasized the latter in his six sermons for Epiphany: the core of this feast is the revelation of Christ to the non-Jewish peoples, of which the three magi were representatives. In sermon 202, Augustine notes that it is a feast with a Greek name that is known throughout the world.18 The Popes Leo the Great (mid fifth century) and Gregory the Great (late sixth century) also left behind Epiphany sermons which likewise only refer to the pericope of the adoration by the magi.19 In the Roman sphere of influence, the baptism of Jesus never played an important part on this day and was later given a separate feast day on the octave, January 13. The wedding at Cana became the fixed gospel reading of the second Sunday after Epiphany. The Roman view on the feast was disseminated everywhere in the West, mainly by the Carolingians, so that it increasingly became the feast of the three magi or kings. The formulary of the Mass as it still is in the Roman liturgy, is in large part present in the oldest Western sources. The chants, the introit Ecce Advenit, the gradual Omnes de Saba, the alleluia-verse Vidimus Stellam, the offertory Reges Tarsis, and the communio Vidimus Stellam, with Psalm 71 [72] being used several times, can all be found in the oldest antiphonaries, from the eighth century onwards.20 The orations and the preface can also be found in the Sacramentaries that render the Roman liturgy of the seventh century, the Gelasianum and the Gregorianum that forms the groundwork for the Roman Missal.21 The older Sacramenta­rium Veronese, a manuscript dating to about 600, makes no mention of the first three months of the year, but it is probable that these prayers and chants already existed for the most part in the course of the sixth century.22 The celebration of  Augustine, Sermo 202, Patrologia Latina 38, 1033-1035.  Frank, “Hodie caelesti,” 149. 20  Antiphonale Missarum Septuplex, ed. René-Jean Hesbert (Brussel: Vromant, 1935), 24f. 21  Vogel, Introduction aux sources de l’histoire du culte chrétien au Moyen Âge, ed. Botte, 55, suggests an origin between 628 and 715 for the Gelasianum Vetus and, at 78, for the Gregorianum Hadrianum, a first version shortly after 735. 22  Ibid., 33-39. All three hypotheses point in this direction. 18

19

256

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

the vigil and the octave are also already described during this period. In this way, it was disseminated in the Western Church during the Middle Ages and included in Pius V’s missal in 1570. This is the way it was put into practice in the Roman rite up to the 1950s, when this feast began to undergo changes. 2.  The Changes in the Formulary of the Mass Starting from the first editio typica (1970) of the reformed Roman Missal, seven changes can be observed in the Mass formulary of Epiphany as it can be found in the missal. Elsewhere, particularly in the liturgical calendar and the lectionary, we also find adaptations with respect to the eucharistic liturgy of this feast. These are the following: (1) the abolition of vigil Mass and octave and the restoration of the vigil; (2) letting go of the fixed date with the option of celebrating it on a Sunday and reintroducing the fixed date; (3) the addition of the second reading Eph 3:2-3a and 5-6 and the responsorial Psalm 71 [72]; (4) the addition of a line in the preface; (5) the replacement of the prayer after communion; (6) the introduction of a new text option for the solemn closing blessing, and (7) the option of a solemn proclamation of the variable feast days. The first two reforms were partially reversed in the latest edition of the missal. 1. Abolition of Vigil and Octave and Restoration of the Vigil The first change to be discussed concerns the position of the feast of Epiphany in the liturgical calendar of the Roman rite. Traditionally, Epiphany had Mass formularies for a vigil mass and an octave.23 A vigil mass is a celebration on the preceding evening, in preparation for the upcoming feast. It can be an expression of expectation and joy, of looking forward to an important event. The octave is the celebration of a solemnity for eight days. The oldest octave is that of Easter. In the 23  Both mainly in the Gelasian Sacramentaries, the vigil earlier than the octave. The Gelasianum Vetus, copied circa 750, only has a vigil, see Leo C. Mohlberg OSB, Leo Eizenhöfer OSB, and Peter Siffrin OSB, Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae Ordinis Anni Circuli, Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, series maior: Fontes 4 (Rome: Herder, 1968), 14; the Gelasianum of the eighth century (copied circa 800) also has an octave and a few “Dominicae post Theophaniam,” see Leo C. Mohlberg OSB, Das fränkische Sacramentarium Gelasianum in alamannischer Überlieferung, Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen 1-2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1918); cf. Auf der Maur, “Epiphanie,” 160.



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

257

course of history, multiple solemnities were given an octave, with a distinction being made between celebrating the eight days, each with their own mass formulary, and only celebrating the eighth day, the octave day. There ended up being a certain proliferation in the vigil masses and octaves that were retained in the Roman missal up to 1955. In the case of Epiphany, these additional celebrations were already present quite early on. Egeria already makes mention of a vigil and an octave in the liturgy of Jerusalem at the end of the fourth century.24 And the sacramentaries that preserved the Roman liturgical texts of the sixth century initially speak of a vigil, a mass on the preceding evening, and gradually, in the manuscripts of the later Gelasianum, of an eight-day celebration. They also give the prayer texts for this celebration.25 Even before the liturgical reform of Vatican II, in 1955, Pope Pius XII abolished most of the octaves in the decree Cum nostra, retaining only those of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.26 The latter would be dropped during the reform of the Council, so that in the new missal there are two octaves for the two most important feast days of the year. Regarding the vigil masses, the abovementioned decree abolished most of those as well, including that of Epiphany. Seven were retained, those of Christmas, Ascension, Pentecost, the Assumption of Mary, the saints Peter and Paul, John the Baptist, and Laurence.27 In the missal of 1970, the vigil masses of Ascension and St. Laurence were subsequently also dropped, so that five remained. As regards Epiphany, the missal of 1962 first shows the new, simplified state of affairs. The first and second editions of the Vatican II missal confirm this trend. They make no mention of a vigil mass or an octave, in accordance with the Decree of 1955. However, almost half a century later, in the editio typica tertia (2002), a mass formulary for a vigil is once again included,28 so that Epiphany is now in the company of Christmas, Pentecost, John the Baptist, Peter and Paul, and the Assumption of Mary. This represents an acknowledgement of the venerable antiquity of the vigil of Epiphany and lends greater relief to this feast day, that is of such importance to both East and West.  Égérie, Journal de Voyage 39, ed. Maraval, 250-257.  Auf der Maur, “Epiphanie,” 160. 26  Congregation for the Rites, March 23, 1955, “Decree Cum nostra – de rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis. II,11,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 47 (1955): 218-224. 27  Decree Cum nostra II,9. 28  Maurizio Barba, “Il temporale, l’Ordo Missae e il Santorale del nuovo Missale Romanum,” Ephemerides Liturgicae 116 (2002): 320-366, at 323 here speaks of “La novità più rilevante et di particulare interesse che l’editio typica tertia del Missale Romanum ha introdotto nel Tempus Nativitatis,” but does not explain this statement. 24 25

258

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

A closer look reveals that the compilers did not opt for the text material of the vigil that had most lately been in use, but compiled a new formulary. The collect prayer Corda nostra is the only element that dates back to the early medieval vigil Mass. It can be found in the vigil in the Gelasian manuscripts and it appears again in the Vatican II missal as collect prayer on the Monday after Epiphany.29 The prayers Super oblata “Suscipe quaesumus” and Post communionem “Sacra alimonia” have been newly compiled. The former contains references to one of Augustine’s sermons and the Rotulus of Ravenna, the latter has a closing line that is derived from a collect prayer of Epiphany in the Gelasianum Vetus.30 The chant texts Surge, Ierusalem (Introit, Baruch 5:5) and Claritas Dei (Ad communionem, Rev 21:23f.) are not mentioned in the Antiphonale Sextuplex of Hesbert on Epiphany or the preceding or following (Sun)days, and neither are they to be found in contemporary editions of the graduale. They stem from the neo-Gallican Missale Parisiense (1738).31 Did the reformers aim to remedy a form of stagnation with these reforms? They can be interpreted as an attempt to strengthen the communal nature of the celebration. 2. Fixed or Movable Date Another theme, which is also tied in with the place of Epiphany in the calendar, is the matter of the date of the feast. The date of 6 January originates in third-century Egypt and is thus very ancient and therefore venerable.32 The records of this date link it to an Egyptian cult of Aion, the god of the dawn, and a rite involving water and the Nile (Epiphanius), and also to the gnostic movement of the Basilides (Clement of Alexandria).33 It appears that the choice of the feast day of Epiphany has its origin in the Egyptian-Hellenistic religion, causing the date to be deeply rooted in the history of the religions. The rich symbolism of the 29  Mohlberg et al., Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae, 14, no. 57; idem, Das fränkische Sakramentarium Gelasianum, 14, no. 91; Missale Romanum, editio typica (1970), 170. See Barba, “Il temporale, l’Ordo Missae e il Santorale del nuovo Missale Romanum,” 323. 30  Mohlberg et al., Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae, 15, no. 61; for the other references, see Barba, “Il temporale, l’Ordo Missae e il Santorale del nuovo Missale Romanum,” 324. 31  Barba, “Il temporale, l’Ordo Missae e il Santorale del nuovo Missale Romanum,” 323, notes 7 and 9. 32  Auf der Maur, “Epiphanie,” 156. 33  Bradshaw and Johnson, The Origins of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons, 131-134 and 137-138.



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

259

feast of Epiphany, as shown in the description of its history, cannot be detached from this special date. In the liturgical traditions of East and West, the feast has accordingly always been celebrated on 6 January. As a departure from this, the missal of Vatican II for the first time offered the option that Epiphany not be celebrated on the day itself, but on the Sunday before or after, though not before 2 January or after 8 January. Where the solemnity of Epiphany is not an obligatory feast day, it is placed on the Sunday that occurs between 2 and 8 January. This Sunday becomes the proper day of the solemnity.34

This adaptation, then, applied to those areas where Epiphany was not an obligatory feast day. This rule was dropped again in the editio typica tertia (2002). Instead, the Mass formulary for the feast of the Baptism of the Lord now makes mention of shifting Epiphany to the Sunday. If that is on 7 or 8 January, the Baptism of the Lord is celebrated on Monday.35 We can conclude from this that in the Roman rite, the feast is once again bound to its own date and is celebrated on 6 January. Because a possible exception can have ramifications for the date of the celebration of the Baptism of the Lord, it is mentioned at that place in the missal. 3. Addition of Second Reading and Responsorial Psalm In accordance with the general pattern of doing so on Sundays, solemnities, and feast days that occur on a Sunday, in the liturgical reform the solemnity of Epiphany was also given an extra scripture reading and a responsorial psalm, which can both be found in the Lectionary for Sundays and solemnities. The reading that was added is the second reading, taken from the letter of the apostle Paul to the Ephesians, chapter 3, verses 2-3a and 5-6. A section of Psalm 71 [72], verses 1-2, 7-8, and 10-13, was placed as a responsorial psalm between the first and the second reading, as an alternative for and in line with the graduale Omnes de Saba.36 Both sections of Scripture that were chosen are in keeping with ­tradition. 34  Missale Romanum, editio typica (1970), 167: “Ubi solemnitas Epiphaniae non est de praecepto servanda, assignatur, tamquam diei proprio, dominicae a die 2 ad diem 8 januarii occurenti.” 35  Missale Romanum, iuxta typicam tertiam (2002), 149: “Ubi solemnitas Epiphaniae ad dominicam transfertur, quae die 7 vel 8 januarii occurit, festum Baptismatis Domini celebratur feria secunda sequenti.” 36  Depending on the character of the celebration a choice is made between the (sung or said) responsorial psalm or the graduale.

260

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

The reading from the letter to the Ephesians has not been read on the feast before in the Western tradition. According to the Capitulare Lectionum, or the Comes, of Würzburg, that contains texts from the sixth century, the readings were Isa 60:1-6 and Titus 3:4-5.37 As to content, however, the reading fits in well. It emphasizes the fact that the salvation of Christ is now not only intended for the Jews, but for the gentiles as well: they are sharers in the promise of the gospel. This idea, expressed by quoting another fragment of the same letter, Eph 2:14 and 17, is mentioned in all six of Augustine’s sermons on Epiphany.38 According to the oldest antiphonaries, Psalm 71 [72] was already used in the three processionals of the Mass: during entrance (verse 1), offertory (verses 7 and 10-11), and communion (verse 7),39 singing of the messianic king and the peace that he brings, with the offertory mentioning the gifts of the kings. This reform evidently had the first stagnation factor in view, the decreased role of scripture and preaching. 4. Addition of a Line in the Preface The preface we find in the current formulary of the Mass underwent an elaboration during the conciliar liturgical reform. The second part, … cum in substantia nostrae mortalitatis apparuit, nova nos immortalitatis eius gloria reparasti, is nearly identical to the preconciliar text of the preface, which can be found in both the Galesian and the Gregorian sacramentaries and thus dates back to the sixth century.40 The line Quia ipsum in Christo salutis nostrae mysterium hodie ad lumen gentium revelasti was added before this. This new composite becomes a whole due to the coordinate conjunction et and the rhyming verb forms revelasti and reparasti, in which the phrasing of another preface resounds41 and in which reference is made to the canticle of Simeon.42 In its current form, 37  The reading from Isaiah on the feast day itself, and the reading from Titus in the vigil Mass. See Germain Morin, “Le plus ancien Comes ou lectionnaire de l’église Romaine,” Revue Bénédictine 27 (1910): 41-53, at 47-48; Auf der Maur, “Epiphanie,” 159. 38  Augustine, Sermo 199-204, Patrologia Latina 38, 1026-1039. 39  Hesbert, Antiphonale Missarum Septuplex, 24f. 40  As preface on the vigil of Epiphany, see Mohlberg, Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae, 14, no. 59; as preface on the feast day of Epiphany itself: see Hans Lietzmann, Das Sacramentarium Gregorianum nach dem Aachener Urexemplar, Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1921), 17, no. 17-3; as preface of the first Sunday after Epiphany: see Mohlberg, Das fränkische Sakramentarium Gelasianum, 17, no. 109. 41  From the preface of the vigil of Epiphany; see Mohlberg, Das fränkische Sakramentarium Gelasianum, 14, no. 93. 42  Luke 2:33 Vulgate: “Lumen ad revelationem gentium.”



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

261

the preface is a thanksgiving for the revelation of the mystery of our salvation in Christ. This mystery is further elucidated by the continuation, which revolves around the paradox of Christ’s advent in mortality, in order to restore humanity by his immortality. The revelation of the mystery, then, lies precisely in the salvific significance of Christ’s advent as a mortal human being. The addition and the adaptation make the classic wording more applicable to the theme of Epiphany. The paradox of mortality and immortality does not seem to relate very immediately to Christ’s salvific coming that is celebrated on this feast day, and is connected to it more clearly by the addition. The aim was to clarify this text and so remedy the second stagnation factor. 5. Replacement of the Prayer after Communion The Tridentine missal prescribed a rather general prayer after communion: Praesta, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus: ut quae solemni celebramus officio, purificatae mentis intelligentia consequamur. It asks God that he grant the faithful that participated in this solemn celebration, that they might put into practice what they have understood with a purified mind. The current prayer after communion, which appeared in the missal of 1970, reads: Caelisti lumine, quaesumus Domine, semper et ubique nos praeveni, ut mysterium, cuius nos participes esse voluisti, et puro cernamus intuitu, et digno percipiamus affectu. The prayer expresses the wish that the Lord might precede his faithful with his heavenly light, always and everywhere, so that they perceive the mystery in which God granted them participation with a clear gaze and receive it with a fitting attitude, digno affectu. It was introduced here after the liturgical reform, but stems from the ancient prayer material of the Gelasian family of manuscripts, where it occurred as a Postcommunio on the feast day itself or later in the weekdays of the octave of Epiphany.43 The heavenly light is clearly a reference to the star that led the magi. The mystery in which one has participated refers, in a direct sense, to the Eucharist, but viewed in connection with the feast equally to the mystery of God’s self-revelation in the incarnate Word. The actual prayer consists in the request to know that mystery in the proper way and receive it with fitting emotions. It is 43  Mohlberg, Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae, 15, no. 67; idem, Das fränki­sche Sakramentarium Gelasianum, 17, no. 114. In the Missal of Trent, the prayer was located after communion on the octave of Epiphany, see Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum, summorum pontificum cura recognitum, editio juxta typicam Vaticanam (Mechelen: Dessain, 1954), 50.

262

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

a beautiful prayer that fits in well with the deepest intentions of both the Eastern and the Western interpretation of Epiphany. It aids in understanding the meaning of the feast as a whole and can therefore be seen as a response to the second stagnation factor. 6. The Solemn Blessing For important liturgical days, the new Roman missal offers twenty solemn blessings that can be used by the celebrant at the end of the Mass in the place of the regular blessing. They are of a tripartite form, in which the priest stretches out his hands over the congregation that responds to each of the sections with “Amen.” In closing, he speaks the formula of blessing while making a sign of the cross over the congregation. In the first two editions of the Vatican II missal, this was the regular blessing formula Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus, Pater, et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, but in the editio typica tertia the formula was replaced by the classic text of the blessing, which can also stand alone: Benedictio Dei omnipotentis, Patris, Filiis, et Spiritus Sancti, descendat super vos et maneat semper.44 These benedictions are based on early medieval episcopal blessings, which were given after the Lord’s Prayer, preceding communion, and can be found in the old sacramentaries. The current texts for the most part stem from the supplement to the Sacramentarium Hadrianum. That of Epiphany cannot be found in either the supplement or the Sacramentarium and therefore appears to be a contemporary creation.45 The text of the first strophe is based on 1 Pet 2:9 and 1 Cor 13:13, the second reveals influences from, among others, 2 Cor 4:5-6, 1 Pet 2:21, John 1:5, and 1 John 2:10, and the third makes reference to Matt 2:9-10 and the Creed. In all three strophes, the advent of Christ is referred to as “light.” The introduction of this benediction indicates that the compilers of the missal wished to count the feast of Epiphany among the main solemnities of the liturgical year. The blessing at the end of the Mass, in connection with the dismissal, is an ecclesiastical and ministerial prayer in which the wish is expressed that the mystery that was celebrated might be realized in the lives of the faithful. 44  Missale Romanum, editio typica altera (1975), 497 and Missale Romanum, iuxta typicam tertiam (2002), 534. 45  Anthony Ward, “The Solemn Blessings of the Postconciliar ‘Missale Romanum’,” Ephemerides Liturgicae 118 (2004): 417-484, at 425f.: “The text appears to be a directly modern composition around elements of biblical phrasing.”



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

263

7. Proclamation of Variable Feast Days The celebration of Easter and the days and times connected with it on a changeable date, i.e. the Sunday after the first full moon of spring, made it necessary to determine and proclaim this date every year. The Council of Nicaea (325) had assigned the calculation and communication of this to the church of Alexandria, after which the bishop of Rome would inform the other churches, on the basis of this first announcement.46 John Cassian testifies that the bishop of Alexandria did this every year by sending letters with this information to cities and monasteries immediately after Epiphany.47 A proclamation of this date on the feast itself is not mentioned by Cassian. In the Western Church, it became the custom to solemnly proclaim the date of Easter and other variable feast days in the liturgy of Epiphany, following the gospel reading. This rite, to be performed by an archdeacon or canon, was included in the Pontificale Romanum of 1596.48 These data indicate that this custom was only observed in cathedrals and other important churches. Guéranger offers a liturgical-theological explanation of this custom in his L’Année Liturgique: This custom, which dates from the earliest ages of the Church, shows both the mysterious connection which unites the great Solemnities of the year one with another, and the importance the Faithful ought to attach to the celebration of that which is the greatest of all, and the centre of all Religion.49

In the Mass formulary of the feast In Epiphania Domini, ad Missam in die, the editio typica tertia of the postconciliar Roman Missal mentions the possibility of solemnly announcing the variable feasts of the coming year after the Gospel: “Where this custom exists, if opportune, the variable feast days of the current year can be proclaimed after the Gospel,  Auf der Maur, “Epiphanie,” 161.  See above, 1. History, especially n. 9. 48  Pontificale Romanum summorum Pontificum jussu editum a Benedicto XIV et Leone XIII Pont. Max. recognitum et castigatum, I, II, III and IV (Regensburg: Pustet, 1908), III, 1, 325f.; Auf der Maur, “Epiphanie,” 161. 49  Prosper Guéranger OSB, L’Année liturgique. T. II: Le temps de Noël (Paris: Librairie Religieuse H. Oudin, 131901), 107f.: “Cet usage, qui remonte aux premiers siècles de l’Église, rappelle le lien mystérieux qui unit les grandes solennités de l’Année liturgique, et aussi l’importance que les fidèles doivent mettre à la célébration de celle de Pâques qui est la plus grande de toutes et la centre de la Religion tout entière”; trans.: Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year. Vol. II: Christmas, trans. L. Shepherd (Dublin: John Duffy, 1886), 141. 46 47

264

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

according to the following formula.”50 Reference is made to an Appendix in the back of the book, where the formula can be found, set to music.51 The text makes a connection between the glad celebration of Christmas and the great joy with which the resurrection of the Savior will be celebrated. Besides Easter itself, Ash Wednesday as the beginning of Lent, the feasts of Ascension, Pentecost, and Corpus Christi, as well as the first Sunday of Advent are announced. Aside from minor changes, text and melody are the same as in the Pontifical of 1908.52 This new mention is remarkable for various reasons. First of all, the reason for it is unclear. The line seems to come out of thin air. Moreover, it is striking that this announcement that has fallen into disuse is restored at a time when, due to the omnipresent media of communication, it is less necessary than ever. Apparently, the Church does not present the ritual as a practical announcement, but as a form of proclamatory liturgy. Furthermore, this announcement, which of old was to be found in the Pontificale Romanum, has now been included in the missal, so that it is more likely to catch the eye of the celebrants. One could view this as the expression of a wish on the part of the Church, that this custom will once again be given a place in the liturgy. 3.  Evaluation of the Changes The changes in the eucharistic liturgy of the solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord, intended to counteract stagnation in the process of liturgical tradition, can be divided into two categories. The first group consists of the six changes that occur immediately in the first edition of the Vatican II missal and that are in line with the reforms that Sacrosanctum Concilium had in view. Simplification is expressed in the abolition of vigil Mass and octave. The greater role of sacred scripture is apparent in the implementation of the second scripture reading and the responsorial psalm. Letting go of the fixed date of the feast can be considered a pastoral concession. The adaptation of the preface and the prayer after communion enrich the celebration while making use of the material of tradition and fit in with the ideal of ressourcement. The introduction of the 50  Missale Romanum, iuxta typicam tertiam (2002), 138: “Ubi mos est, pro opportunitate, publicari possunt post Evangelium festa mobilia anni currentis iuxta formulam infra positam.” 51  Ibid., 1155f. 52  Pontificale Romanum III, 325f.



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

265

solemn final blessing coincides with the general trend of introducing these formulas of blessing in the 1970 missal. Three other changes: the restoration of the vigil, the fixed date, and the option of a solemn proclamation of the date of Easter, are not to be found until the third edition of the missal (2002). These are three forms of restoration of older rules or customs that had been abolished or had fallen out of use. Regarding the vigil Mass and the fixed date, one might state that this is a “reform of the reform.” After all, these are changes that date to 1955 and 1970 and were meant as reforms, but were reversed in 2002. In both cases, these were measures that simplified the celebration of the liturgy for ministers and congregations. In all probability, the vigil Mass was only rarely celebrated anyway, and if it was, as an additional service, it will in most cases have been with few faithful present. Letting go of the fixed date of 6 January and instead celebrating the solemnity on Sunday, meant that it was easier for the faithful to attend this celebration. The presentation, in the missal, of the option of solemnly proclaiming the date of Easter, might almost be considered a new initiative, the reintroduction of an old tradition, in order to establish a new, ritual form of proclamation. 1. Is Christ’s Reality of Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy? The first criterion starts from the requirement that the process of liturgical tradition should not present any obstacle for a transmission of the reality of salvation in Christ that is as complete as it can be. Do the reforms of the solemnity of Epiphany answer this criterion? From the testimonies and sermons on, in particular, the Eastern perception of this feast, we can conclude that it was an important feast of Christ that was celebrated with much enthusiasm and had its own, powerful atmosphere. The baptism of Christ was seen as his luminous manifestation to the believer who, through his own baptism, was taken up into this light. In the Roman rite, it was never experienced so strongly in this way and this also seems to have gradually decreased, possibly because Christmas monopolized people’s attention. What is the significance of the reforms studied here for the Christological nature of the feast? Has its particular goal, the celebration and transmission of the manifestation of Christ, been strengthened or rather weakened? (1) Abolition of vigil Mass and octave and reintroduction of the vigil. The preparatory vigil and the continued celebration of eight days are options that the liturgy offered to highlight the celebration of this feast.

266

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

It can be assumed that initially, this option was made use of in some parts of the Western Church. Of the intensity with which, according to Egeria, these days were celebrated in late fourth-century Jerusalem, however, we have no examples in the West. We suspect that in the course of time, particularly in the late Middle Ages, the vigil and octave of this feast became mere formalities. For this reason, it is understandable that they were unceremoniously abolished in 1955. Why was the vigil Mass restored a little less than half a century later? Did the Church wish to underscore, in so doing, that along with the six other great and hallowed feast days that have a vigil, this feast deserves a special preparation, so that its content is better done justice to? In places where the vigil of Epiphany can be celebrated solemnly and with a large congregation, this feast of Christ’s manifestation will certainly stand out better. The reintroduction of the vigil can therefore be interpreted as a strengthening of this feast’s possibility of making Christ’s salvation present and handing it down. (2) Letting go of and reinstating the fixed date. The combination of the feast of Epiphany with the preceding or following Sunday can be judged as positive from a Christological perspective. The two commemorations, the celebration of the resurrection proper to the Sunday and the multidimensional celebration of the manifestation of Christ, can reinforce one another. The combination of the two days was in accordance with the Council’s desire to give greater emphasis to the Sundays and feasts of the Lord.53 In the choice made in the 2002 missal, to retract this decision and once again maintain the original date, we can accordingly not detect any Christological motives. (3) The addition of the second reading Eph 3:2-3a, 5-6 and the responsorial Psalm 71 [72]. The reading underscores the universal nature of the coming of Christ, because it accentuates that Christ came for Jews and Gentiles and the that non-Jewish peoples fully share in the salvation of the God of Israel. The responsorial psalm is read with an eye to Christ as the messianic king who brings justice and peace and to whom the earthly kings bring their offerings. Both liturgical additions therefore enhance the already Christocentric nature of the celebration. (4) The addition of a line in the preface. The supplementation of the preface causes this text to refer more explicitly to Christ, in particular to the salvation in Him and to the fact that He has come as a light for all peoples. In the original version, the preface focused on the paradox of  Sacrosanctum Concilium 106 and 108.

53



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

267

the immortal one becoming mortal in order to let mortals share in his immortality. In this new version, the text offers a richer image of Christ and due to the terms mysterium and lumen fits in better with the Eastern, highly Christological, origin of the feast. (5) The replacement of the prayer after communion. The new prayer, chosen from the material of tradition, fits in well with the feast of Epiphany. It expresses the subjective-mystical side of the manifestation of the Lord in the mystery of the incarnation and the sacramental liturgy. When Christ appears to the human being, they will see him with enlightened eyes and receive him in a sincere heart. This prayer enhances this liturgical celebration’s ability to pass on Christ’s salvation. (6) The introduction of a new optional text for the solemn final blessing. At the end of the celebration, this blessing offers the opportunity for a few central themes of the feast to be voiced again in an application for one’s daily life of the theological virtues, charity, and the hope of joy in the heavenly light. It is a Christologically pregnant text that certainly contributes to the proclamation and transmission of Christ in this celebration. (7) The option of solemnly proclaiming the variable feast days. The text that is offered for this proclamation, intended to be festively sung, makes a connection between some of the main feast days of the liturgical year, by announcing the date of Easter and the related feasts. This rite should be viewed as a form of catechetical preaching, which gives the faithful insight into the Christological meaning of the liturgical year. Accordingly, this seventh reform, too, can be given a positive evaluation on the basis of the Christological criterion. In general, then, the reforms of the solemnity of Epiphany offer an enhancement of the Christ-focused nature of this feast. This is true both of the reforms that were included in the missal in 1962 and 1970, and of the later reforms in 2002. Only in the abolition of the octave and reintroducing a fixed date, thus both an early and a later reform, we cannot discover any Christological motive. We conclude, then, that the first evaluation criterion reveals predominantly positive picture with regard to the reforms of the Mass formulary of this solemnity of Epiphany. 2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant? Conscious and active participation in the liturgy calls for an accessible and intelligible celebration, as well as an equipped participant. When these conditions are met, the question still remains how certain liturgical

268

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

reforms are perceived. Can they be understood by present-day people and be experienced as relevant? (1) Abolition of vigil Mass and octave and reintroduction of the vigil. The abolition of both the preparatory and the eight-day celebration was undoubtedly motivated by the fact that both options had become an empty formality. It was the legal confirmation of the fact that what may once have been a living liturgical practice had fallen into disuse centuries ago. In a very down-to-earth way, this liturgical reform can be considered a cleanup of the liturgical books. It will have passed unnoticed by the faithful and most celebrants. That the vigil mass was reintroduced a few decades later is a development that is very interesting from a pastoralliturgical perspective. Night vigils and celebrations in the evening or night have a certain attraction in our times.54 Although the vigil Mass is not intended as a night vigil, there is some connection between the two. Proposing a related liturgical option can be seen as an invitation to the faithful to celebrate this feast more attentively and also to prepare for it. Liturgical texts can, after all, be considered an incentive to open oneself for aspects of salvation in Christ. The question remains, however, whether there is enough psychological and pastoral room for a grand celebration of Christ’s manifestation in the world so soon after the feast of his birth. Another question that remains is whether modern culture is sensitive to the idea of the manifestation of the person of Christ as a mystery. If these possible difficulties are not as bad as they might be or are overcome, however, then the vigil of Epiphany will be able to contribute to the celebration of the feast and will be considered by many to be a relevant reform. (2) Letting go of and reinstating the fixed date. This reform was, as we saw, abolished in the third edition of the missal (2002). Because the feast has now been celebrated on Sunday since 1970, the faithful have increasingly been brought into contact with it and it has likely become more familiar. If, with the introduction of the translated third edition, it is once again celebrated on the fixed date and therefore usually on a weekday, it is to be expected that far fewer believers will participate in its celebration. It seems likely most people will not understand the choice for the fixed date, nor will they experience it as being relevant. In many cases, the venerable age and historically interesting roots of this date will not be considered to be of importance to the Christian liturgical experience. 54  Besides a number of examples of celebrations on the evening before Sundays and feast days, an internet search on the word “vigil” yields a wide variety of memorial, protest, reflection, and prayer vigils, sometimes in the form of a walk.



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

269

(3) The addition of the second reading Eph 3:2-3a, 5-6 and the responsorial Psalm 71 [72]. In the increase of the number of scripture readings the general problem occurs, already discussed above, of the chasm between modern people and the language of the Bible. In many parishes, two Scripture readings are already felt to be burdensome, so that the addition of a third one as well as a responsorial psalm will but rarely elicit recognition and appreciation. We are here confronted with inadequate biblical and liturgical formation. The universal message, crossing all boundaries, that both texts, in particular the passage from the Letter to the Ephesians, bring forward, will not encounter incomprehension but rather assent. That Christ came for all peoples without exception can be considered as relevant. (4) The addition of a line in the preface. The added line can be interpreted as an explanation of the rather concise earlier text. The elucidating function is weakened due to the language which, with terms like “mystery,” “salvation,” and “revelation,” does not immediately fit in with the speech and thought of contemporary people. As a whole, the renewed preface offers a better articulation of the content of the feast of Epiphany and can therefore be considered a liturgical reform that accommodates the believer who wants to celebrate this feast consciously. (5) The replacement of the prayer after communion. This prayer is characterized by the usual succinctness of Roman orations. It pays attention to the process of subjective appropriation of the reality of salvation. The believer comes into the picture in four different ways. First of all, it is asked that God precede the Christian with his heavenly light. Then, it is brought to mind that it was God’s wish to let him or her participate in the mystery. Next comes the plea that the faithful might perceive the mystery of salvation with a clear gaze. Fourthly, the wish is expressed that they might receive it with a worthy mind or fitting sentiment. In this way, these few words elaborately express the manner in which people participate in the liturgical feast. God’s help is called upon for both a proper understanding and a satisfactory experience of the content of the feast. The actively participating believer will be able to identify with this prayer and will experience it as meaningful. (6) The introduction of a new optional text for the solemn final blessing. The solemn final blessing, proposed from the 1970 missal onwards, offers a meaningful summary of the content of the feast and gives the close of the celebration and the sending of the faithful a greater emphasis. The text is accessible and is not far removed from the faith experience of contemporary people, due, among other things, to the mention that is made of faith, hope, and love, and the theme of life as a pilgrimage.

270

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Because of this, this new text will be seen as meaningful by the participants in the celebration. (7) The option of solemnly proclaiming the variable feast days. The ancient tradition of announcing the date of Easter of the current year on Epiphany is brought to the attention of the faithful by including the line in question. It does not appear to be the intention that this proclamation be performed in all parish churches. Its worth obviously does not lie in its informative, but in its catechetical and evangelizing aspect. The proclamation focuses the attention of the faithful on the central importance of Easter, its ties to the position of the moon and Jewish Passover, and the link between the various feasts of the liturgical year. For this reason, it will be considered by many to be relevant. The liturgical reforms of the feast of Epiphany will be considered by contemporary believers to be relevant to varying degrees. In our estimation, the additional and new texts do contribute to the accessibility of the feast. The abolition of the octave will not evoke any reaction at all, the reinstatement of the fixed date will only be evaluated positively by historically-minded people. The reintroduction of a vigil Mass may in some cases be experienced as a valuable option and likewise the proclamation of the date of Easter. Whether the reforms offer a substantial contribution to clarifying the meaning of this feast is doubtful. The question remains, though, whether this is indeed necessary. Perhaps contemporary believers are drawn precisely to the intangible, mysterious nature of this feast of the manifestation of the Lord. 3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy? The third evaluation criterion is concerned with the identity of the liturgical tradition. Liturgy is not something that stands on its own, but is part of a rite, a family of churches that have common traits, among other things in the liturgy. What is characteristic of this criterion, is that reforms start from the features of the rite in question and do not create a new liturgy, separate from the rite. Liturgical heritage is not confined to a rite, however; there is also a liturgical identity that is shared by multiple rites. From the moment it arose and first developed, the feast of Epiphany as interpreted by the Western Church has its own identity, which is expressed, among other things, in the prayers, hymns, and scripture readings of the Mass formulary. (1) Abolition of vigil mass and octave and reintroduction of the vigil. The abolition of the preparatory celebration of the vigil and the continued



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

271

celebration in the octave did not constitute an essential change to the feast. The simplification of the rubrics is justified in the Introduction to the decree on the basis of the necessity of lightening the workload of priests.55 The many vigil masses and octaves demanded their own readings and prayers in both Mass and breviary, often in combination with other feasts or memorials. This led to intricate patterns in the daily prayers of priests and religious communities. Moreover, vigil and octave were not celebrated with the congregation and had in that sense become a formality. A lessening of the instructions on this point was not considered to be damaging to the liturgical heritage. Did the ecumenical dimension also play a part? The fact that the Byzantine tradition has many octaves might have made the reformers more cautious in abolishing it too quickly. On the other hand, in the Western tradition most octaves and vigils had become mere formalities. The later restoration of the vigil mass fits in with tradition and intends to underscore the importance of the feast. To our mind, both changes respected the character of the feast. (2) Letting go of and reinstating the fixed date. The date of 6 January is connected with the oldest roots of this feast in the East and the West, and it is in turn one of the oldest feasts of the liturgical year. Letting go of the obligatory nature of this date can be considered as damaging to the liturgical heritage, the monument of tradition, and as a breach of continuity, however convincing other possible motives may have been. Viewed from the perspective of the criterion of identity, the reinstatement of the fixed date is a good thing. (3) The addition of the second reading Eph 3:2-3a, 5-6 and the responsorial Psalm 71 [72]. As determined above, the reading from the letter to the Ephesians and the responsorial Psalm 71 [72] fit in well with the Western view on this feast. The psalm has always played an important part in its celebration and the epistle underscores the idea of salvation that is meant for all peoples. Here, the identity of the feast was honored. (4) The addition of a line in the preface. As argued above, the preface of Epiphany is an ancient text that dates back to the beginning of the Western celebration of this feast. The addition of a line might raise the question whether it is not better to leave ancient material of tradition 55  Decree Cum nostra, 218: “Cum nostra hac aetate sacerdotes, praesertim illi qui curam animarum gerunt, variis novisque in dies apostolatus officiis onerentur, ita ut divini officii recitationi ea qua oportet animi tranquillitate vix attendere possint, nonnulli locorum Ordinarii enixas preces S. Sedi detulerunt, ut huiusmodi difficultati amovendae benigne provideret, ac saltem rubricarum copiosum instructum ad simpliciorem redigeretur formam.”

272

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

alone. On the other hand, the intelligibility of the prayer and the representation of the content of the feast have been improved. All in all, the assessment on the point of the criterion of identity will still have to turn out positively here. (5) The replacement of the prayer after communion. “Saving” a beautiful prayer from liturgical heritage that is no longer in use, namely the abolished octave of Epiphany, as a replacement for a more common prayer text seems to us to be a legitimate choice. Here, the identity of the feast is confirmed with traditional prayer material. (6) The introduction of a new optional text for the solemn final blessing. The oldest layers of the Western feast of Epiphany did not include a final blessing in the modern sense of the word, only a “Prayer over the people.” It took until after the Middle Ages before the blessing became a fixed part of the Ordo Missae, and up to the missal of 1970 it came after the sending. The solemn blessing preceding the sending is therefore a modern invention. The form, however, does fit in with the triple blessing that can be found in the Hadrianum as a blessing before communion. Here, we therefore see an ancient form which is used as a model for a new text, that is given a new placement and intent. It is a new asset in the ancient mass formulary that is in line with the feast and therefore does not damage its identity. (7) The option of solemnly proclaiming the variable feast days. The historical data cited make clear that we are here dealing with a very ancient practice that originated in the Council of Nicaea. The new proposition of proclaiming the date of Easter on the feast of Epiphany is in fact the continuation of a catechetically interesting peculiarity of Epiphany. This is a good example of re-using ancient treasures of the liturgical heritage. The application of the third evaluation criterion has revealed that there is a great degree of continuity in the way the feast of Epiphany has been celebrated according to the Roman rite. No one will wish to uphold that this feast has been stripped of the identity it has had in the Western liturgy since the sixth century. Therefore this evaluation criterion yields a positive result: on the whole, the way in which this feast is celebrated according to the liturgical books, as part of the liturgical monument of tradition, has been passed on well. 4. Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development? Liturgical reforms call for a gradual introduction, making it possible to take small steps. This prevents the unintended disappearance of valuable



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

273

elements from the liturgy due to drastic and rapid changes. The appropriation of the liturgical process of tradition by the faithful also demands a gradual development, that is, a certain slowness, avoiding multiple, great, drastic innovations in a short period of time. Through the lens of the fourth criterion, we will once again consider the reforms of the mass formulary of Epiphany. (1) Abolition of vigil Mass and octave and reintroduction of the vigil. The reversion of the decision to abolish the vigil mass raises the question whether that decision was not made too hastily. A more balanced and cautious choice might have been made in 1955. Considering the special historical position of the feast of Epiphany and the age of the concomitant vigil, this custom might have been retained at that time, as was done with a number of other solemnities. (2) Letting go of and reinstating the fixed date. The two changes to the date of the feast may signal a changed attitude of the ecclesial authorities with regard to civil society. It might be hypothesized that, in 1970, there was a tendency to adapt to countries where this feast is not a holiday and is not publicly celebrated, whereas in 2002, the Church found it desirable to celebrate this feast on its own date after all, even though this is usually a weekday, in opposition to the trend of secularization. The underlying reasons for these decisions call for further research. Graduality is not an issue here, as there is no intermediate form possible between a fixed or variable date. (3) The addition of the second reading Eph 3:2-3a, 5-6 and the ­responsorial Psalm 71 [72]. The increase of the number of Scripture readings in the Eucharistic liturgy of Sundays and solemnities was a significant, fundamental choice in the implementation of the Council’s wishes on this point. Along with the new missal, the new lectionary for Sundays and feast days also took effect in 1970, with the introduction of the second reading and the responsorial psalm. To the extent that graduality is possible here, it is to be found in the practical implementation. The other four changes to the formulary of the Mass of Epiphany, the addition of a line in the preface, the replacement of the prayer after communion, the introduction of a new optional text for the solemn final blessing, and the option of solemnly proclaiming the variable feast days, are modest textual changes or options. There is no question here of too many reforms in too short a period of time. Moreover, the feast is of course only celebrated once a year. There is therefore no real danger of changes that are too great and too rapid in a short period of time.

274

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

In these reforms of a Mass formulary, the fourth criterion does not demand particular attention. When many changes are proposed in a short period of time in a part of the liturgy that is celebrated often, it can be important to introduce these changes gradually. Here, on the other hand, the changes are few and inconspicuous, in a liturgical feast that is only celebrated once a year. Because of this, the changes are automatically gradual. Besides this, there is another form of graduality here: the changes discussed were not all introduced at the same time, but at different moments in the course of more than thirty years. Conclusions The reforms to the Eucharistic liturgy for the solemnity of the Epiphany can in general be assessed well, making use of the first three criteria. These criteria can be applied as instruments of evaluation that judge liturgical reforms as tradition-in-progress. The fourth criterion, however, turns out to yield little result for this type of reform because the changes here are few, inconspicuous, and seldom occurring. As stated, the reforms of the Mass formulary of Epiphany are not drastic changes. They show how the eucharistic texts of this feast were honored in line with the Western tradition and at the same time improved. This case study has also provided two modest examples of “reforms of the reform.” This mainly illustrates how liturgical reforms are influenced by the spirit of their times. If the latter changes quickly, the type of reform that is desired can also rapidly shift. At the same time, the reform of this feast also makes visible an underlying development: adaptation of texts and rubrics was a matter for priests, who were the primary ministers of them, but increasingly, also in the newest reforms, became a matter for the people of God, that either does or does not find an opportunity to celebrate and hand down the mysteries of faith in the transmitted material of tradition. This means that the second criterion becomes increasingly important. The observation that the fourth criterion does not yield many answers in the case of this reform leads to the question of the interrelationship of the four criteria in this case. Is there a balance? The application of the criteria shows that the first three were sufficiently answered. The reform of the solemnity of Epiphany strengthens both its Christological character and the accessibility and relevance of the feast. The identity of the feast is also more than sufficiently retained: the content of the feast and



CHAPTER X: THE REFORM OF THE SOLEMNITY OF EPIPHANY

275

most of the texts have not been changed in the course of the centuries. Graduality was taken into account in the introduction of reforms, even though special attention for this was not necessary. Here at least, there is a good balance in the reforms between the various principles and the criteria derived from them.

Chapter XI

The Reform of the Calendar Introduction The liturgical calendar, which makes mention of the Sundays, feast days and memorials that are celebrated in the course of the year, comprises two cycles of feasts: the Proper of Seasons (proprium de tempore, temporale) and the Proper of Saints (proprium de sanctis, sanctorale). The first cycle consists of the feasts of Christ’s mystery of salvation, Sundays, weekdays, Easter with its accompanying days and seasons, and Christmas with its accompanying days and seasons. “Ordinary Time” also belongs to the Proper of Seasons. With the exception of the solemnities of Christmas, Mary, Mother of God, and Epiphany, these are all variable feasts, that is, they do not have a fixed date.1 The second cycle consists of the celebrations of saints that are connected with a fixed date; together with the solemnities of Christmastide, the feasts of dedication, and a few feasts of the Lord they comprise the fixed feast days.2 Almost all the important Christian rites and traditions have such a calendar of the memorials and feasts to be celebrated by the church. Within the Roman Catholic version, two different forms can be distinguished: the general Roman calendar, which is to be found in the front of the Roman Missal and the Book of Hours, and the particular calendars, such as regional or national liturgical calendars, diocesan calendars, and the liturgical calendars of religious orders and congregations.3 Each of these is based on the general calendar, but adds its own feasts and memorials. This liturgical calendar in its many forms underwent important revisions that make up an essential part of the liturgical reforms ordered by the Second Vatican  Christmas, its octave day, and Epiphany are special because here the Proper of Seasons and the Proper of Saints overlap. This already becomes apparent in the mention of the birth of Christ in the earliest calendar of saints, see n. 10. 2  Philipp Harnoncourt, “Der Kalender,” in Feiern im Rhythmus der Zeit. II/1: Herrenfeste in Woche und Jahr, ed. Hansjörg Auf der Maur, Gottesdienst der Kirche: Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft 6/1 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1994), 9-63, at 45f. 3  Ibid., 47f. 1

278

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Council. This chapter considers the reform of the calendar of saints, examining the main reforms that were introduced following the directions of the Council, and how the quality of these reforms can be assessed on the basis of the proposed evaluation criteria. We make use of the same scheme as in the previous case studies was applied, namely: first, a brief overview of the history of the calendar of saints in the general Roman calendar4; second, an inventory of the reforms as published in the Calendarium Romanum of 1969, preceding the publication of the new missal after the Second Vatican Council.5 and third, an evaluation of these reforms using the four criteria. 1.  Brief Overview of the History of the Roman Calendar of Saints The feast days of the saints belong to the most ancient layers of the Christian liturgy.6 As early as the second and third centuries, when apart from Sundays and Easter there were hardly any ecclesial feast days, a cult of the martyrs developed. The earliest witness to this is the Martyrium Polycarpi, the letter from the church of Smyrna to that of Philomelium, which was written shortly after the martyr’s death of Polycarp in 155/156 and in which mention is made of respectfully gathering his relics and a holding yearly celebration of his martyrdom.7 In the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian, dating to the beginning and the middle of the third century respectively, we find testimonies to the factual celebration of such memorials of the deaths of martyrs in Northern Africa with a celebration of the Eucharist. Cyprian also speaks of composing a list of  Harnoncourt, “Der Kalender,” 47f.; Hansjörg Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage der Heiligen,” in Feiern im Rhythmus der Zeit. II/1: Herrenfeste in Woche und Jahr, ed. Auf der Maur, 65-357. 5  Harnoncourt, “Der Kalender,” 47: “Dieser Kalender wurde in seiner heutigen gültigen Form 1969 promulgiert (Calendarium Romanum) und ist Bestandteil des Missale Romanum (1970) und der Liturgia Horarum (1971/72); ihm entspricht in diesen B ­ üchern die Anordnung der Texte im Sanktorale.” See the motu proprio by Pope Paul VI (14-21969): Mysterii paschalis, for the promulgation of the new general Roman calendar, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 61 (1969): 222-226. The calendar of saints itself is published in Calendarium Romanum. Ex decreto Ss. Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli pp. VI promulgatum (Editio typica Vaticano, 1969). 6  Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 72. 7  Ignace d’Antioche / Polycarpe de Smyrne, Lettres; Martyre de Polycarpe: texte grec, introduction, traduction et notes, ed. Pierre Thomas Camelot OP, Sources Chrétiennes 10 (Paris: Cerf, 1951), 268; Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 92f.; cf. Boudewijn Dehandschutter, Martyrium Polycarpi: een literair-kritische studie, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 52 (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1979). 4



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

279

memorial days of martyrs and confessors, which shows that around 250, the celebration of these days had become common usage in the church of Carthage.8 In Rome, the oldest known calendar of saint’s days is the so-called Chronograph, a text from 354 with a list of fifty-four largely Roman martyrs and the date of their memorial (depositio martyrum) as well as a list of deceased bishops and the date on which they were commemorated (depositio episcoporum). It is striking, in the list of martyrs, that the apostle Peter is commemorated twice, both on 22 February and, together with Paul, on 29 June.9 Another remarkable fact is the mention of the birth of Christ on 25 December.10 One can connect this, as H. Auf der Maur does, with the Christocentric nature of the veneration of martyrs and saints. The celebration of saints is an extension of the celebration of the Christ-mystery. The martyrs share in the passion and death of Christ, in order to be resurrected with him as well.11 Data on the calendars of the saints in the city of Rome for the following century is derived from the sacramentaries. The oldest of these, the Veronese, is a collection of liturgical prayers for the months from April through December and dates to the sixth century. The sanctorale is not mentioned separately, but is to be derived from the mass formularies that are included. In total, there are here only twenty memorial days of saints, with thirty-nine saints. Comparison with the depositio martyrum reveals that very few of its dates were adopted, while some other names and dates were included.12 New is mention of John the Baptist and some non-martyrs such as the apostle John and the bishop Sylvester, indicating a development of veneration of the apostles and bishops who were not considered to be martyrs.13 The trend continues in the eighthcentury Gregorianum Hadrianum, in which we find the saints’ days of the papal liturgy.14 The number of feast days of martyrs is greatly increased here, but there is also a growth of the number of saints who are not martyrs. The number of feasts of apostles and other New Testament saints also increases. Further, Marian feasts appear for the first time: on 25 March, 15 August, and 8 September. The Sacramentarium  Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 93.  Ibid., 103 and 137. 10  Ibid., 138 and 319: “VIII Kal. Ian. Natus Christus in Betleem Judeae.” 11  Ibid., 138. 12  Ibid., 139. 13  Ibid., 140. 14  Pierre Jounel, “Le sanctoral Romain du 8e au 12e siècles,” La Maison-Dieu 52 (1957): 59-88, at 60-75. 8

9

280

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Gelasianum Vetus, compiled in Rome in the seventh century, gives the liturgical texts and customs of one or more Roman titular churches, where rather than the papal liturgy, a simpler, presbyteral liturgy was celebrated. The sanctorale that can be distilled from this differs from the papal celebrations in that there are less memorial days; for instance, a number of names of Popes, but also of Roman martyrs, are not included.15 There are, however, extra biblical feasts, such as the apostle Thomas, the passion of John the Baptist and the Maccabee brothers, and again the three abovementioned Marian feasts. Relatively early in the history of the liturgy, the distinction arises between calendars of saints, lists of saints’ days that were factually celebrated, and martyrologies, enumerations of saints that were as complete as possible and included short descriptions of their lives. Besides the abovementioned lists of saints’ names derived from the mass formularies in question, there are also the oldest forms of martyrology, which take the form of calendars of saints offering more information on the saint in question. P. Harnoncourt mentions three, that precede the Roman Martyrology of 1584.16 Most ancient is the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, the earliest form of which may date back to the middle of the fifth century.17 It summarizes the calendars of many churches in East and West, but without biographical data.18 Dating from the beginning of the eighth century, the Martyrologium of Beda Venerabilis gives data on a limited number of saints.19 Finally, the Martyrologium of Usuard, of around 875 was soon copied and used in Rome and elsewhere, and ultimately became the groundwork for the Roman Martyrology.20 Up to the second half of the twelfth century, there was no common Roman calendar of saints with each church having its own list of saints. Among these, the calendar of the Basilica of Lateran, as the cathedral of Rome, had an important place. It was strongly influenced by the reception of Roman-Frankish liturgical books that had been introduced in  Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 143.  Harnoncourt, “Der Kalender,” 56. 17  There is no consensus on the dating of the Martyrologium Hieronymianum in the various studies: Jounel, “Le sanctoral romain,” 59 places it at 420, Harnoncourt, “Der Kalender,” 56, speaks of the middle of the fifth century, but Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 94, places it in the seventh century. 18  Martyrologium Hieronymianum, ed. Giovanni Battista de Rossi and Louis ­Duchesne, Acta Sanctorum II/1, nov. (Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1894), 1-195. 19  Martyrologium of Beda Venerabilis, Patrologia Latina 94, 799-1148. 20  Martyrologium of Usuard, ed. Jacques Dubois OSB, Subsidia Hagiographica 40 (Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1965). 15

16



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

281

Rome since the eleventh century,21 and shows a significant increase of the number of saints’ days, 104 new memorials and 163 new names, including 18 women, from a variety of regions, Italy, Gaul, Spain, the British Isles, but also from the East. The Roman calendar developed into a more universal calendar, in which there was also room for contemporaries from further afield, such as Thomas Becket.22 Two new groups also become apparent: Doctors of the Church and monastic saints. As might be expected of this calendar, there is a striking degree of attention for the feasts of the Popes, of which there are no less than forty.23 The apostles are now all accounted for and the abovementioned Marian feasts are present.24 The increased number of saints’ days already begins to raise the question of competition between the feasts of the Lord and the feasts of the saints, even if the former are not yet overrun. Martyrs, bishops, and holy Popes dominate the picture, but there is an increasing amount of room for monastic saints and Doctors of the Church.25 It is this calendar that is further disseminated in the course of the following centuries, along with the liturgical books of the Roman liturgy. In the Middle Ages, especially in the Gothic period with its wealth of forms in liturgy and architecture, we see a huge increase in the number of saints’ days. The aim was to commemorate a saint every day, as an image of God’s varied forms of grace, but also with the practical motive that the office of feasts had less psalms, especially for Matins, and was therefore shorter.26 Throughout the Middle Ages, regulating the calendar was the responsibility of the local bishop. Despite the growing criticism, particularly from the fourteenth century onwards, of the proliferation of saints’ days, which came at the expense of the Sundays and the liturgical seasons, the local bishops were nevertheless unable or unwilling to carry reforms through.27 The committee that composed the new liturgical books after the Council of Trent, by order of Pope Pius V, also revised the calendar of saints, probably on the basis of an eleventh-century Roman calendar.28 The reform of the liturgy, as thus also of the calendar of saints, was now  Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 146.  Ibid., 146f. 23  Ibid., 147. 24  Ibid., 148f. 25  Ibid., 150. 26  Philipp Harnoncourt, “Kritische Erwägungen zum neuem Calendarium Romanum,” Liturgisches Jahrbuch 20 (1970): 65-91, at 68. 27  Ibid., 69. 28  Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 152 and 154. 21

22

282

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

no longer a local affair, but belonged to the jurisdiction of the Pope. The intention was that the universal calendar, with its local Roman background, would be used in all dioceses and orders, except in the places where they had their own, ancient traditions. Saints whose relics were venerated locally or who were celebrated as the patron saint of a church, could be added to the calendar. As a rule, however, individual diocesan calendars were no longer allowed.29 The universal calendar would thus become a local calendar.30 The committee also strove to limit the number of saints’ days, so that the Sundays and the feasts of the Lord would not suffer.31 Striking also is the increase of the number of Doctors of the Church, the founders and holy members of the monastic and mendicant orders, and the increase of the number of Marian feasts.32 In order to regulate the precedence of the various feasts and memorials, a system of classification was introduced.33 The consequence of this general introduction of a universal calendar of saints was that dioceses and religious orders wanted to have their own saints included in it as much as possible, whereas beforehand they were only celebrated locally. The Tridentine calendar was accordingly once again rapidly overrun with new feast days.34 In the eighteenth century, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, Germany and France composed their own breviaries and calendars of saints, which included far fewer saints and paid more attention to regional traditions for feasts, but these disappeared again in the nineteenth century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the calendar was once again overfull. The saints’ days had completely supplanted the “year of the Lord” with its regular weekdays and Sundays, probably to an even greater extent than was the case before the Tridentine reform.35 Pope Pius X considered this state of affairs in the celebration of the liturgical year to be a pressing liturgical problem and quickly set to work on this, starting in 1911.36 The measures he took liberated the Sunday from other feasts, improved the distribution of the weekly psalms in the  Harnoncourt, “Kritische Erwägungen,” 69.  Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 154. 31  Ibid. 32  Ibid., 155f. 33  Ibid., 155 and 158. 34  Harnoncourt, “Kritische Erwägungen,” 70; Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 161f. enumerates how many new saints were added to the calendar per Pope in the period 1570-1960. All in all, 137 were added. 35  Harnoncourt, “Kritische Erwägungen,” 71. 36  Ibid. See there also the various papal documents on this reform. 29 30



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

283

breviary so that the same feast psalms were not continually repeated, and abolished as many additions to the ferial office as possible. A reduction of the number of saints’ days was mainly to be undertaken by the orders and the dioceses.37 The Congregation of the Rites constrained them to adhere to the Roman calendar and drop most of their own saints’ days, with the exception of feasts they had their own clear and specific relationship with. A historical-critical adaptation of the liturgical texts was also called for, in order to remove elements of legend, especially in the readings of Matins.38 A reduction of the number of saints’ days in the Roman calendar was envisioned by Pope Pius X, but not executed. Between 1915 and 1960, moreover, numerous new saints’ days were again introduced.39 The new codex of rubrics of 1960 did not improve the situation: local feasts, even if they were deeply rooted in dioceses, often had to make way, while the complete and expanding list of feasts of the universal calendar was retained in full.40 In chapter V, De anno liturgico, of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, three important measures can be distinguished, as Harnoncourt notes: the further upgrading of the Sunday in article 106, the clear precedence of feasts of the Lord (the Proper of the Seasons) over the Proper of the Saints in article 108, and the decentralization of the veneration of saints in article 111.41 The first two points of policy are in line with what had been consistently put into practice since Pius X, the third is a break with Roman policy up to that point. Here, the issue is that the Council asks for the regulation of the feasts of saints to be returned to a greater extent to the jurisdiction of the particular churches and religious families. The saints that are celebrated communally in the whole of the Universal Church, should truly have significance for the whole Church. Unassuming the presentation may be, this phrasing appears to constitute a turnabout of a centuries-old policy: the point of departure is no longer  Harnoncourt, “Kritische Erwägungen,” 72.  Ibid. 39  Ibid., 73. 40  Ibid., 74. 41  Sacrosanctum Concilium 106: “… dies dominica est primordialis dies festus, … Aliae celebrationes, nisi revera sint maximi momenti, ipsi ne praeponantur, …”; Sacrosanctum Concilium 108: “… Proprium de Tempore aptum suum locum obtineat super festa Sanctorum, …”; Sacrosanctum Concilium 111: “Ne festa Sanctorum festis ipsa mysteria salutis recolentibus praevaleant, plura ex his particulari cuique Ecclesiae vel Nationi vel Religiosae Familiae relinquantur celebranda, iis tantum ad Ecclesiam universam extensis, quae Sanctos memorant momentum universale revera prae se ferentes.” Cf. Harnoncourt, “Kritische Erwägungen,” 76. 37 38

284

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

the universal but the local calendar.42 It is, however, according to Harnoncourt, “an arrangement that corresponds exactly with the essence and the original tradition of the veneration of saints in the Church.”43 In the course of time, the order of precedence of the various liturgical feasts had taken on an increasingly complicated form.44 In his 23 March, 1955 decree Cum nostra, worked out in the new codex of rubrics of 26 July, 1960, Pope Pius XII drastically simplified the rubrics, also adapting this order of precedence. After the Council, this was taken even further: the reformed calendar in fact has only three ranks: that of the (obligatory or optional) memorial (memoria), that of the feast (festum), and that of the solemnity (solemnitas). In order to determine the further order of precedence among these, there is a tabula dierum liturgicorum which can be consulted in the missal and the book of hours. 2.  The Reforms of the Calendar of Saints Change, and in particular expansion, belongs to the essence of the calendar of saints, simply because the Church acknowledges new saints and promotes their veneration. Their public celebration is made possible, among other things, by the inclusion of an annual memorial day in the calendar of saints. A calendar of saints undergoes a continuous development, which in itself does not have the character of a reform. The reform of the calendar mainly consists in the adaptation of its internal organization, based on certain principles. The aim of the revision of the calendar of saints is to remedy the stagnation that occurred in the liturgical commemoration of the saints. The result of such a renewal of the calendar of saints, requested by the Council, was published on 21 March, 1969, under the title Calendarium Romanum, shortly before the publication of the new missal and the new book of hours, in which this calendar was included and implemented.45 In order to attain this result, the Council for Liturgical Reform had appointed a study group (Coetus I) that presented a first report to the Council on 25 April 1965. In it, it was proposed that the calendar should  Harnoncourt, “Kritische Erwägungen,” 76f.  Ibid., 77: “… eine Regelung, die genau dem Wesen und der ursprünglichen Tradition der Heiligenverehrung in der Kirche entspricht.” 44  For a concise description of the situation in 1955 and afterwards, see Pierre Jounel, “L’organisation de l’année liturgique,” La Maison-Dieu 100 (1969): 139-156, at 142. 45  See n. 5. 42 43



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

285

become more universal in nature, “in order to … keep the Roman calendar from being a Mediterranean calendar.”46 It was also decided that the following would remain in the universal calendar: the apostles and evangelists, the most important ancient martyrs, a number of Doctors of the Church, and saints that represent a certain form of spirituality or apostolate.47 In October 1966, there was once again a presentation for the Council regarding the general structure of the new calendar. A proposal about the terminology of solemnitates, festa, and memoriae was also discussed. In the meeting of the Council of 10-19 April, 1967, the new calendar was definitively approved, after which the chairman, Cardinal Lercaro, presented it to the Pope. The Pope decided that the draft should be submitted to the Congregations of the Doctrine of the Faith and of the Rites.48 Especially in the area of the Marian feasts and those of the angels, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith proposed quite a few reductions, while on the other hand the number of obligatory memorials of saints was increased by twenty-three. The Pope accepted these changes and published the new calendar on 9 May, 1969.49 As the central norm for the reform of the calendar of saints, the Second Vatican Council offered the following rule: “to avoid the feasts of saints being given more weight than the feasts renewing the actual mysteries of salvation.”50 The feasts of the saints are part of the liturgical unfolding of Christ’s mystery of salvation. “The feasts of the saints proclaim what are in fact the wonders of Christ in those who serve him.”51 The central feasts and times of Christ, especially the Sunday as the day of the resurrection, Lent and Eastertide, Advent and Christmastide, form the main content of the liturgical year. Together with Ordinary Time, they form the cycle of the year in which the mystery of Christ is unfolded. Feasts of saints are an essential part of this, but ought not to overshadow this foundation. It is the scholarly consensus that in the course of the Middle Ages as well as 46  Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, 308: “… in order to bring out the universality of holiness in the Church and to keep the Roman calendar from being a Mediterranean calendar. Examples of saints to be introduced are the Japanese, Canadian, and Ugandan martyrs, and the protomartyr of Oceania.” 47  Ibid., 308. 48  Ibid., 309. 49  Ibid., 310-313. 50  Sacrosanctum Concilium 111: “Ne festa Sanctorum festis ipsa mysteria salutis recolentibus praevaleant…”; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *839. 51  Sacrosanctum Concilium 111: “Festa Sanctorum mirabilia quidem Christi in servis eius praedicant …”; trans.: Tanner and Alberigo, eds., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, *839.

286

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

after the Council of Trent, the feasts of the saints threatened to overrun the liturgical year. The liturgy of the Sunday very often had to make way for feasts of saints. The feriae were almost completely ousted by all manner of memorials. The liturgical year was filled with so many feasts and their octaves that there was sometimes no Sunday celebrated in green, no complete weekly psalter and cursory Scripture reading in the breviary, for years on end.52 Addressing this proliferation of saints’ days was considered to be a priority of the liturgical reforms. The Council found an important remedy in the decentralization of the calendar of saints: many more feasts and memorials of saints would no longer be celebrated worldwide, in the whole Roman Catholic Church, but only in the particular churches, under the jurisdiction of bishops and religious orders. This might prompt the conclusion that the reform of the calendar only concerned a reduction of the number of feasts of saints, but it is not as simple as that. On what points were reforms applied to this calendar of saints, on the basis of abovementioned central norm? The main points of reform are: the name of the calendar; the deletions; the new entries; the relocations; and the classification. These renewals will be considered as presented in the 1969 edition, the moment of the reform of the calendar, and compared with the calendar of saints in the 1954 missal, just before the first reforms. This is, accordingly, a snapshot in time. Of course the calendar is in continuous development and since that time a number of names have been added and other changes made. 1. Nomenclature The liturgical calendar’s new name is: Calendarium Romanum Generale. The term Calendarium, calendar, gives a division of the time period of a year into months and weeks. The calendar of saints gives feasts and memorials of saints that are celebrated on a certain, fixed date, which is indicated by the mention of such-and-such a day of a certain month. The two adjectives describing the noun are new. In earlier editions, only the word Calen­ darium (or Kalendarium) was used. The use of Romanum intends to signify a limitation. It is, after all, the calendar of the Roman rite. Other liturgical traditions have divergent calendars. The term generale is opposed to ­particulare, which indicates the calendars proper to dioceses, regions, and religious families. The Council’s intent was, after all, to stop ­celebrating a significant number of saints’ days universally, but rather leave these to this  Harnoncourt, “Kritische Erwägungen,” 71.

52



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

287

latter group, so that the bishops could once again wield the responsibility they had historically for the liturgical celebration of the saints in their diocese.53 Some liturgists point out that this policy plan was hardly executed, but that, on the contrary, what was striven for was a universal calendar. Harnoncourt, for example, believes that this official aim was replaced by a different, opposite aim, namely giving the calendar a universal character through a chronological and geographical balance and including saints from all peoples and periods.54 Auf der Maur declares: “In opposition to the clear assignment of the Council, the decentralization of the calendar of saints has only been very poorly realized.”55 Hollaardt states that the Roman calendar committee has admitted that it was unable to find an adequate criterion to determine whether a saint is “of universal importance” … For this reason, it resorted to an entirely different principle: calendarii “universalisatio” or in other words, making the calendar of saints representative of the “world church,” among other things by giving all the continents and as many countries as possible a place in it by mentioning a saint originating there.56

The three authors mentioned all emphasize that the factual aim of the calendar reform, that is the decentralization of the feasts of the saints, was not realized, but that instead a universalization of the calendar took place, something Vatican II had not asked for and that originated in the Council for Liturgical Reform.57 The stance of these authors with regard to this reform is also critical. Hollaardt speaks of a “geographic-­apologetic” principle.58 53  Sacrosanctum Concilium 111: “… plura ex his particulari cuique Ecclesiae vel Nationi vel Religiosae Familiae relinquantur celebranda, iis tantum ad Ecclesiam universam extensis, quae Sanctos memorant momentum universale revera prae se ferentes.” 54  Harnoncourt, “Kritische Erwägungen,” 81: “Auch ist hier leicht erkennbar dass das iis tantum … extensis des Konzilstextes eine ihm widersprechende Umdeutung erfahren hat.” See also Calendarium Romanum, “normae universales.” 55  Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 172: “Entgegen dem klaren Auftrag des Konzils ist aber die Dezentralisierung des Heiligenkalenders nur sehr mangelhaft verwirklicht.” 56  A. Hollaardt OP, “De nieuwe liturgische kalender en de heiligen,” Tijdschrift voor Liturgie 58 (1974): 200-206, at 203f., n. 8: “dat zij geen adequaat criterium heeft kunnen vinden om uit te maken of een heilige ‘van algemene betekenis’ is … Daarom heeft zij haar toevlucht genomen tot een geheel ander princiep: calendarii ‘universalisatio’ ofwel de heiligenkalender representatief maken voor de ‘wereldkerk’ o.a. door alle werelddelen en zoveel mogelijk landen er een plaats te geven door de vermelding van een daarvan afkomstige heilige.” Cf. Calendarium Romanum, “Annus Liturgicus Instauratum,” 70. 57  See above, note 47. Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 173; Harnoncourt, “Kritische Erwägungen,” 81. 58  Hollaardt, “De nieuwe liturgische kalender,” 204, n. 8.

288

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

What is to be made of this stance? It cannot be denied that on this point the reform of the calendar led to something different than the Council intended. Whereas in the late 1960s many people were of the opinion that a certain decentralization would take place in the Church and that the calendars of the saints would become more of a reflection of the locally celebrated saints, much like in the first millennium, what in fact happened was something different. Saints that were considered to be representative of a country or continent were placed in the general calendar for precisely that reason, in order to emphasize the universality of the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, it became apparent that most bishops were not in a hurry to compile the particular calendars and that all the emphasis continued to be on the general calendar. Almost fifty years later, the point of view that the choice made at that time was the right one is defensible. In light of the increasing globalization of the Roman Catholic Church, due, among other things, to the travels and canonizations of Pope John Paul II, a more universal calendar can be considered appropriate. The Council’s wish of giving greater attention to the particular calendars of saints retains its significance, but celebrating representative saints from countries and continents of the whole world everywhere also appears to be meaningful within the perspective of increasing migration, fast media, papal travels, World Youth Days, and other phenomena that make the Church and the world smaller. This need not immediately have consequences for the nomenclature of the calendar. The Roman Catholic Church may have an almost worldwide presence due to its history of mission and colonization, but it remains the Church of the Roman rite and it acknowledges other Patriarchates and rites alongside it. In the same way, this calendar of saints, which inevitably and justly has universal traits, is at the same time just one among many other calendars of religious orders and congregations and of other rites that exist in the world. The reform of this calendar is an attempt to better harmonize with the cultures and faith communities across the globe and is accordingly directed against the sixth stagnation factor. 2. Deleted Celebrations At the time the new, revised calendar of saints was published in 1969, it comprised ten solemnities, twenty-three feasts, and sixty-three obligatory memorials: in total, ninety-six fixed celebrations a year. Moreover, ninety-five optional memorials were included, which brings the total



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

289

number of memorials to 158. All in all, then, 191 celebrations were included, over half the days of the year, with some days offering multiple optional memorials. All these are the celebrations with fixed dates, mainly saints’ days, but also other feasts such as feasts of the Lord and feasts of dedication of churches. Feasts with variable dates are in addition to this number. In the Roman missal of 1954, there are twelve double first class celebrations (comparable to solemnities), twenty-eight double second class feast (comparable to feasts), and 238 other celebrations of the ranks greater double (duplex maius), double (duplex), semidouble (semiduplex), and simple (simplex), 279 celebrations in all, and an additional sixty-seven commemorationes, not counting vigils and octaves.59 Of the solemnities, two were accordingly removed: that of the Precious Blood on 1 July and that of the archangel Michael on September 29, which has become a feast. Of the feasts (“Duplex II Classis” in the old missal) five less are mentioned: the Circumcision of the Lord (1 January), the Holy Name of Jesus (first Sunday in January), the Finding of the Cross (3 May), Saint Anna (26 July), and the feast of the Rosary (7 October). The latter two continue as memorials on the same dates, Anna together with her husband Joachim. In the case of the memorials, the number of deleted celebrations is of course much greater. Across the remaining four categories, the 1954 missal has: 25 greater double, 128 double, 54 semidouble, and 31 simple, amounting to 238 celebrations that today would be classed as obligatory or optional memorials. In the reformed calendar, as already noted, 158 memorials remain, of which 63 are obligatory and 95 optional. Eighty memorials of saints have therefore been deleted, in particular celebrations in the two lowest categories, simple and semidouble, with the memorials designated as “simple” having all been deleted. These were the memorials of less prominent Popes and Roman martyrs of whom little is known.60 The names of saints of whom only mythic data is available and of whom it is uncertain that they actually existed, were also removed from the calendar, such as Saint Christopher (25 July). Auf der Maur speaks of a “historical-critical test.”61 The disappearance of various feasts of angels is remarkable: 24 March, the  The days of an octave, and particularly the eighth day, the octave day, also count as feast days of a certain rank. Because most of these were abolished, including them would distort the comparison between the old and new calendars. Vigils are also counted as an extra feast day. This is why these two categories are not included in the sum total. 60  Hollaardt, “De nieuwe liturgische kalender,” 204f. 61  Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 174: “Der Kalender von 1960 wurde einer historisch-kritischen Überprüfung unterzogen.” 59

290

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

archangel Gabriel, 24 October, the archangel Raphael, and the feast of the appearance of the archangel Michael on 8 May. The new calendar gives their communal feast day on 29 September. Feasts such as the circumcision of Jesus on 1 January and the martyrdom of the Maccabee brothers on 1 August were also removed. Of the feasts of the apostles, we miss the Chair of St. Peter in Rome on 18 January62 and St. Peter in Chains on 1 August. The celebrations of the dedication of the Roman basilicas has also been reduced: the dedication of the Maria Maggiore on 5 August and those of the basilicas of Peter and Paul on 18 November were taken down from duplex maius to the rank of optional memorial. The dedication of the Lateran basilica on 9 November continues to be celebrated at the rank of a feast. In general in this liturgical reform, the saints’ days were radically cut back, resulting in what was indeed hoped for, that the memorials and feasts are exceptions and that the new calendar numbers retains a significant number of feriae. The critical question that has to be asked, has bearing on the criteria of removal. Rational and particularly historical arguments appear to carry great weight. Other criteria, pertaining to the cultural or devotional significance of feasts, their biblical roots, or their significance in relation to Judaism, appear to have played a far more limited role. The aim of this reform was apparently to do more justice to the symbolism of the feasts of the saints by means of simplification, in response, therefore, to the second stagnation factor. 3. New Entries The new entries in the general calendar of saints are first of all the recently canonized saints, such as John Fisher and Thomas More (22 June), Maria Goretti (6 July), and Pope Pius X (21 August). Whereas in the past saints were mainly found among martyrs, Popes, and founders of religious orders, the emphasis has now shifted to lay people, women, and people from outside of Europe. Restraint was exercised in admitting new saints to the general calendar: the great wish was, after all, a decrease and cleanup. A number of names of saints from various continents were only partially represented in the old calendar and give shape to the universal nature of the calendar, so for example Peter Chanel (Oceania, 28 April), Charles Lwanga and companions (Uganda, Africa, 3 June), Martin de  Removed to 22 February, the old date of the Antiochene Chair.

62



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

291

Porres (Peru, South America, 3 November), and Paul Miki and companions (Japan, Asia, 6 February) are now included. Representativeness was an important criterion in this reform of the calendar and also remained so afterwards for the many new canonizations, especially during the pontificate of John Paul II. A review of the geographical distribution of the sanctorale, however, reveals that in 1969, it was still strongly centered on Europe. Of the saints included (not counting those found in the Bible), 123 come from Europe and 27 from the other continents. Within Europe, there is a strong concentration on the Latin countries and Italy in particular.63 The universality mainly becomes apparent in the initial impetus that was given, not in the final product. The inclusion of many new saints was intended to prevent the sixth stagnation factor and better fit in with the various peoples and cultures. 4. Relocations A striking characteristic of the new calendar of saints is the large number of relocations. Auf der Maur counts seventy celebrations given a different date, five feasts and sixty-five memorials, which is over a third of all the memorial days of the new calendar.64 Some of the most well-known are the feast of Mary’s visitation of Elisabeth (from 2 July to 31 May), the feasts of the Apostles Thomas (from 21 December to 3 July) and Matthias (from 4 February to 14 May ), the Church Fathers Basil (from 14 June to 2 January), Cyril of Alexandria (from 29 February to 27 June), and Gregory the Great (from 12 March to 3 September), the monastic Father Benedict (from 21 March to 11 July), the founder Dominic (from 4 August to 8 August), and the Doctor of the Church Thomas Aquinas (from 7 March to 28 January). Auf der Maur distinguishes three motives for shifting these dates.65 First of all, the aim was to clear Advent, particularly the last eight days before Christmas, Lent, and Eastertide of saints’ days, in order to give more room to the particular character of these seasons or, conversely, to prevent feasts of important saints from being displaced by the Proper of Seasons. Second, as many saints as possible were placed on their historically known date of death, thus correcting erroneous datings. It is, after all, the day of death that is celebrated as the day of birth in heaven. Third, celebrations were situated in a  Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 175.  Ibid., 178. 65  Ibid. 63

64

292

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

logical or historically correct order relative to each other. Monica, for instance, was placed the day before her son Augustine on 27 August, and the Visitation of Mary ended up on 31 May, between the Annunciation (25 March) and the birth of John the Baptist (24 June). The changes of dates, then, are far-reaching. This has caused the calendar to be radically “rebuilt.” There were good reasons for this intervention, but it also raises questions and objections pertaining to the method used and its consequences. Harnoncourt posits that “one is given the impression that the Council has composed an entirely new calendar on the basis of rationally correct principles, without taking into account what had grown.”66 The underlying question is whether the compilers, for instance, gave too much weight to historical and logical arguments, at the cost of other principles, such as those of tradition and culture. A saint is more than a historical person, he or she is also a complex of symbols, developed in tradition, which are experienced as meaningful and relevant in a community and are celebrated for this reason. In line with this, Harnoncourt wonders whether celebrations rooted in popular piety will retain their attraction on new dates. Auf der Maur also expresses this concern, as well as the ecumenical dimension: do such unilateral changes give rise to greater division between the churches?67 Some differentiation is called for here, however. These objections are not applicable to all the relocations by any means. Historical accuracy is a value that certainly belongs here, along with the liturgical argument that the celebration of important saints should not continually be dropped due to the higher rank of a certain liturgical season. In this reform, no single stagnation factor seems to have been key; the aim was rather to promote liturgical, historical, and logical correctness. 5. Classification The full system of ranks in the reformed calendar is Sunday (Domenica), solemnity (solemnitas), feast (festum), obligatory memorial (memoria obligatoria), optional memorial (memoria ad libitum), and weekday (feria).68 The first and the last of these are of no direct importance to the calendar of saints. The rest of the ranking is described in the tabula 66  Harnoncourt, “Kritische Erwägungen,” 84: “… gewinnt man den Eindruck, das Consilium hätte einen ganz neuen Kalender nach rational richtigen Grundsätzen erstellt, ohne auf gewachsenes Rücksicht zu nehmen.” 67  Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 178. 68  Calendarium Romanum, “Commentarius in novum calendarium,” 76-81.



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

293

dierum liturgicorum, the “table of liturgical days according to their order of precedence.”69 This shows, among other things, that the Sunday takes precedence over all memorials and feasts, except the feasts of the Lord. These can replace the liturgy of the Sunday if they occur on a Sunday. Solemnities, both of the Lord and of saints, also take precedence over Sundays, with the exception of the Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Eastertide.70 As a result of this, the Sundays and the regular weekdays once again play a larger, natural part in the liturgical year and feasts and memorials of saints are not the rule but the exception. The new classification is a drastic simplification in comparison with the complicated system that arose during the High and Late Middle Ages, when there was a great increase in saints’ days with vigils and octaves. At that time, there were various terms for the ranking of the feasts, of which the origins and meaning have not yet been completely discovered.71 The Tridentine liturgical reforms brought about unity and clarity in the mutual relations between the feasts. Eight different ranks were distinguished: Festum duplex I. classis cum octava privilegiata/non privilegiata; festum duplex I. classis; festum duplex II. classis; festum duplex majus; festum duplex; festum semiduplex; festum simplex; commemoratio. This system remained in use until 1960.72 The new division into three ranks has a certain matter-of-course nature to it and seems to have been well received. It also maintains a continuity with the old system of ranking. As mentioned above, the solemnitates largely coincide with the double first class feasts, and the festa with the double second class feasts. The memoriae underwent a drastic simplification, from the five types in the old system to a simple division into two. The former system of ranking indicated much of the detail of the liturgical obligations of a certain day (which psalms, prayers, readings, antiphons, and responsories one was to choose). Why was the old classification felt to be out-of-date and in need of simplification? In the literature, the argument of the desirability of simplification is usually not further expanded on. The background of this 69  The Roman Missal, renewed by decree of the most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and revised at the direction of Pope John Paul II. English trans. third Typical Edition for use in the Dioceses of the USA, 2011, 119; http://www. ldysinger.com/@magist/1978_SCDW/2011_roman_missal/ THE%20ROMAN%20MISSAL-bookmarked.pdf (accessed 7 July 2021). 70  Harnoncourt, “Der Kalender,” 53f. 71  Ibid., 52. 72  Ibid.

294

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

might be sought in the fact that this simplification is a general, cultural phenomenon, the consequence of a social-political paradigm shift. An example can be found in court etiquette. Whereas during the centuries before the French Revolution, association with monarchs was subject to many and complicated rules, which centered on the hierarchy of courtiers and guests and their opportunities of approaching the monarch, during the two centuries that have passed since then we see an increasing simplification and democratization of social conventions. Something similar appears to have taken place in the liturgy. The changes in the classification of the saints’ days is an expression of this. Some difference between the various saints and the magnitude of their celebrations is appropriate, but distinctions that are too numerous and too subtle are perceived as unnecessary and excessive. This reform appears to be aimed at preventing all too large a gap between the Church and the surrounding culture, and thus has bearing on the sixth stagnation factor. 3.  Evaluation of the Reforms The calendar of the saints is one of the most changeable aspects of the liturgy. A visible sign of this is the collection of pages with prayers and readings for use in the celebration of new saints, additions for missal and lectionary that are distributed every now and then by liturgical departments. New saints are sometimes added to the general calendar or the precedence of a celebration is changed. It is precisely these ongoing, incidental changes that can cause the calendar as a whole to become defective. The most striking of these changes is, as we saw, the proliferation of saints’ days. In the above, five reforms of the calendar were considered. The change of name led to the question as whether the nature of the calendar is more particular or more universal. The reformers opted for the latter, though the Council Fathers requested the former. The removal of a large number of saints’ days led to the question as to what criteria were used in doing this. How important is historical accuracy? The new entries also appear to tend towards a more representative and universal design of the calendar. The shifting of dates prompts questions over the motivation underlying changes. The reformers strove for more historically reliable dates for the celebrations, better liturgical possibilities of celebrating them (outside the seasons of Advent, Lent, and Easter), and logically better placings. How are these arguments related to others, which generally received less attention? The new classification was mainly



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

295

marked by the simplification that seems to fit in with the cultural development of the past two centuries. These reforms will now beheld up to the light of our four criteria together. 1. Is Christ’s Reality of Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy? The first evaluation criterion concerns the liturgical communication of the paschal mystery of Christ. The celebration of the feasts of the saints is one of the ways in which Christ and his salvation are transmitted in the liturgy. Saints make clear in a concrete way how the gospel can be lived in practice and how salvation became a reality in their existence. What is important in this regard is that the saints’ story is in fact told and that the connection with Christ and his gospel is made. In the case of the reforms discussed above, we may state that in general, they offer more room for the liturgical presence of Christ in his relationship with the saints. It seems like a negative argument, but by celebrating less saints, the remaining ones can be celebrated in a sounder way. The deletion of a large number of saints’ days give more room in the liturgical year for regular weekdays with their more varied gospel readings. Due to Lent, the Easter octave, and the final days before Christmas being kept freer of saints’ days, the central place of Christ in the liturgical year is given more emphasis. For the celebrations that remain, this means that they are given a better, more Christological framework. The removal of saints about whom no historical data is available, means a decrease of the likelihood of commemorating saints about whom nothing can be said with regard to their life and its Christian character. Commemorating saints ought not to be a mere formality, but rather ought to mediate a truly Christian aspect of salvation. However, this does not automatically imply that relatively unknown or uninteresting saints do not belong in the calendar. But have the saints not been shifted too far towards the margin in the reformed liturgy? The fact that saints’ days can no longer supersede the Sunday or the seasons of Advent and Lent, and that their number has been reduced, could point towards everything centering on Christ, at the expense of his saints. Here, the liturgical options that are offered play an important part. If ministers disregard the optional memorials in Eucharist and liturgy of the hours, and only formally mention the obligatory memorials, the danger is indeed present that in the place of the earlier proliferation of saints, one now ends up in a desert without the company of the saints.

296

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Due to the greater variety of readings, the better proportion in relation to the Sundays and feasts of the Lord, the better, more reliable information on the lives of the saints, and more opportunities for mentioning the saint in question during the celebration, the reformed calendar of saints, as it appears within the framework of the reformed liturgical books, seems to offer more opportunities for transmitting Christ’s reality of salvation. 2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant? With regard to understandability, what applies to other liturgical celebrations also applies to the liturgical celebration and commemoration of the saints: a certain initiation is presupposed. The believer will have to be informed about the saint to be celebrated and be receptive to being touched by this story of a life. The liturgy is not the place to offer catechesis on saints and sanctity. Saints, as stated, are concrete manifestations of the gospel and of the imitation of Christ. Where the life of a saint is celebrated in homily, reading, prayer, song, and ritual, this may certainly be understood and experienced as relevant. What is equally necessary for this, however, is that the participant in the celebration is reached in his or her own frame of reference, on both an intellectual and emotional level. In this sense, does the renewed liturgy of the saints have a greater, equal, or smaller chance of being understood and experienced as meaningful? In general, we may state that in the new liturgical books, the celebrations of the saints have more substance. Minimal references, such as in the commemorationes, no longer occur. If the memorial or feast of a saint is celebrated, this happens with clear references in the prayers and, if this is opted for, also in the Scripture readings. In the homily, the opening words, and the intercessory prayers the significance of the saint is often brought to the fore.73 Furthermore, the diversity of the saints being commemorated has become much greater. People from all times, from all the regions of the earth, and increasingly from recent history are commemorated in the 73  In the Sanctorale in Liturgia Horarum, short descriptions of the life of the saint(s) of the day are included, and/or historical information on the celebration of that day. These are also included in translation in the English altar missal. The celebrant can make use of this for introduction or homily, which sheds light on the significance of the saint in question.



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

297

liturgy. The participating believer is invited to contemplate people who lived long ago, in different countries and in completely different circumstances. The liturgy, after all, is not limited to the current times, but aims to represent the whole of tradition. The way in which saints are “different” may have a surprising, even shocking effect, which does not preclude the experience of relevance. Nevertheless the chance that it is a contemporary story, immediately recognizable and meaningful for the lives of people living in the here and now, has not lessened, but rather greatly increased. An important aspect for recognizing relevance is the cultural or devotional significance of saints. If saints are too much reduced to their historical form, it may be more difficult to distinguish significance. In the course of the centuries, however, their lives have been supplemented with legends, patronages, devotions, and customs. In some cases, the connection with the historical character has become weak, as we can see in the example of Saint Nicholas. In other cases, it has disappeared entirely, as with Saint Valentine. In both cases, we see popular celebrations that are considered by many to be meaningful and valuable. It is possible that the liturgical reform did not sufficiently allow for this side of the cult of the saints and that the new calendar gives insufficient opportunities to make a connection between the liturgy and devotional or cultural customs. The feasts of the angels call for particular attention. Above, we saw that these were drastically reduced. Of the five feasts of angels, the new calendar only retained two: the archangels together on 29 September and the guardian angels on 2 October. It is possible that there were historical reasons for deleting these feasts, but one is nevertheless left with the impression that this was also influenced by the fact that in the 1960s, on the basis of a rational approach to faith, angels were considered a fringe phenomenon of the Christian faith. Who at that time could have predicted that forty years later, angels would be so popular both within and outside of the Church?74 Here, the reformed liturgy seems to be missing a chance to connect with the spiritual trends in society. The celebration of the saints and the angels plays a large part in popular piety. Saints are revered as examples, patron saints, and intercessors.75 In the relationship between popular piety and the liturgy, the 74  Recent books about angels abound. Consider only the translated books by Anselm Grün OSB, on angels: Angels of Grace (1998), Everybody Has an Angel (2000), Angels Calling (2010), An Angel for You (2019). 75  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/

298

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Church strongly emphasizes the priority as well as the formative and normative significance of the latter.76 At the same time, already in Sacrosanctum Concilium, it pleads for a proper harmonization between the two.77 In summary, the Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy states: Hence, the Liturgy and popular piety are two forms of worship which are in mutual and fruitful relationship with each other. In this relationship, however, the Liturgy remains the primary reference point so as “clearly and prudently to channel the yearnings of prayer and the charismatic life” which are found in popular piety. For its part, popular piety, because of its symbolic and expressive qualities, can often provide the Liturgy with important insights for inculturation and stimulate an effective dynamic creativity.78

The close ties between the two cultic expressions are rightly underscored here. From this perspective, we may state that the reform of the calendar of saints insufficiently retained or created possibilities for this mutual and fruitful contact. On the basis of the second criterion, the conclusion is twofold. On the one hand, the renewed calendar of saints offers the participant more opportunities to recognize the significance of the saint in question and experience the celebration of her or him as relevant. On the other hand, the strictly historical and rational approach causes the calendar to have too few points of contact that enable a contemporary person to connect his or her own experience of angels and saints with the liturgy of the Church. 3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy? The third criterion has to do with the celebration of the saints as a monument of tradition. The numerous liturgical celebrations of saints that the general and particular calendars bear witness to, have been handed down in the tradition of the Latin rite for centuries as a substantial part of the liturgy. We saw that the calendar of saints is in a continuous state of development, due to new saints being acknowledged by the Church and being given their own local, regional, or universal celebration. Expansion also calls for reducing, in order to prevent ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html (Vatican City, 2001), n. 213f. (accessed 7 July 2021). 76  Ibid., n. 11. 77  Sacrosanctum Concilium 13. 78  Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy, n. 58.



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

299

­ roliferation. The celebration of the saints, then, is by definition a p changing part of the liturgy. The third criterion, however, pertains to identity within change. Does the liturgy of the saints remain itself in its development? The identity has to be safeguarded by various conditions. For instance, the Church’s examination of new saints with reference to various forms of evangelical life. Another condition is restraint in moving or removing saints’ days. Many of them are, after all, deeply rooted in the faith experience of the people of God. Just as in the previous criterion, popular piety plays a part here. The liturgy, after all, is constituted not only by the formal forms represented in books, but also by the believer’s inner experience of it, which takes shape in, among other things, devotions, sacramentals, and folklore. Many saints have their own extra- or paraliturgical customs, which are sometimes more, sometimes less connected with their liturgical memorial. When dates of saints’ days change or saints are removed from the calendar, a link between liturgy and popular piety is easily broken. Such changes may then damage the identity of the liturgy. Various authors point out the large number of relocations of saints’ days, over a third of all the memorials and feasts, as we noted above. They also call to mind the discussion in the press caused by the publication of the calendar, partly because the difference between the calendar of saints and the martyrology was unclear. With the deletions of wellknown and sometimes beloved saints, as well as the new entries, the changes to the calendar are clearly very extensive. We saw that Harnoncourt even speaks of “an entirely new calendar.” Auf der Maur calls the changes “not completely unproblematic, especially for those days that are more deeply rooted in popular piety.”79 J. Dubois speaks of the “startling reactions” to the announcement of certain changes.80 Based on this limited study, it is not possible to determine with certainty whether this change affects the identity of the calendar. However, the popular, devotional aspect was not sufficiently taken into account and the changes were too one-sidedly motivated by historical or logical, generally speaking by rational arguments. This, along with the large number of changes,

79  Auf der Maur, “Feste und Gedenktage,” 178: “Diese Neuordnung ist allerdings nicht ganz unproblematisch, vor allem für jene Tage, die in der Volksfrömmigkeit tiefer verwurzelt sind…” 80  Jacques Dubois OSB, “Les saints du nouveau calendrier: tradition et critique historique,” La Maison-Dieu 100 (1969): 157-178, at 158: “… quelques modifications diffusées à titre d’exemples. Elles ont provoqué des réactions assez retentissantes…”

300

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

justifies the suspicion that the calendar of saints was too drastically renewed. 4. Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development? In close connection with the above criterion is that of gradual development. Gradual liturgical changes are a prerequisite in order to avoid, as much as possible, the limitation of the assumptions and prejudices of one’s own time.81 What can said about the speed and the degree of graduality of the reform of the calendar of the saints? The principle that would come to govern a reform of the calendar of saints could already be discerned in the 1950s. The emphasis was placed on local responsibility and simplification. The latter was already expressed in 1955, in the abolition of vigils and octaves and the simplification of the system of classification. The greatest change however, the deletion and relocation of a large number of celebrations, which was the result of a few years of work between 1965 and 1969, was experienced as being drastic and sudden. There was no graduality here. The calendar was linked to the missal and the book of hours, because the liturgy of the Eucharist and the daily liturgy of the hours also had to observe the saints’ days. A new edition of these two books for liturgical use therefore also had to contain a new calendar. The choice was made to immediately include a completely revised calendar of saints, which precluded an advantageous and desirable graduality. The reformers robbed themselves of the possibility of letting a new calendar develop in phases, which would have made it possible to correct imbalances and faults that became apparent during its use and to correct their policies on the basis of new insights. As in the case of the two above criteria, the graduality of changes to the calendar of saints is mainly relevant with regard to popular piety and the devotional and cultural aspects of the liturgy of the saints. Too many changes in too short a time period contribute to the rift between these two cultic forms of expression which we already noted above. If popular piety can no longer make a connection with the liturgy, because the celebrations of saints have disappeared or been moved within a short time span, the opportunity for a mutually fruitful collaboration is lost. In practice, solutions for this were sometimes sought and found, such as in the case of the relocated feast of the Visitation of Mary, which was  As argued under VI.5.

81



CHAPTER XI: THE REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

301

retained on 2 July in the Regionalkalender für das Deutsche Sprachgebiet.82 In Germany, the name Maria Heimsuchung is often used for the patronage of parishes, hospitals, and schools, so that the name plays a part in public life. It is not always the case, however, that a feast is felt to be so important that such a decision is made. A gradual and decelerated process of decision making offers the opportunity to include new insights and ultimately, if there are weighty arguments, to abandon a proposed relocation or deletion. On this basis the reform of the calendar of saints does not sufficiently meet the evaluation criterion of graduality. Conclusions The application of the four criteria has yielded a number of insights with regard to the reform of the calendar of saints. The Christological criterion led to a positive assessment: the reformers saw to it that the central position of the Paschal mystery became more apparent. The criterion of relevance for contemporary people yielded a mixed result. On the one hand, more opportunities are given for recognizing and celebrating the current significance of saints. On the other hand, a number of points of contact between the calendar and the contemporary experience of saints and angels are missed. The final two evaluation criteria, identity and graduality, showed a predominantly negative result. The application of these principles revealed that the reform of the calendar distances itself fairly radically from the monument of tradition of the saints’ days and has thus caused a deepening of the rift between popular piety and liturgy. An important factor in this case study as a whole was the devotional and cultural aspect of the veneration of saints. Popular piety and folklore cannot be completely separated from the liturgy of the saints. The reform of the calendar did not sufficiently take these aspects into account. The final two criteria are derived from what the second chapter of this study called the liturgical “monument of tradition.” They accordingly have a special relationship with tradition as depositum, as transmitted treasure. Both criteria ask after a proper preservation, transmission, and use of that treasure. In the recent liturgical reform, the historically  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionalkalender_f%C3%BCr_das_deutsche_ Sprachgebiet (accessed 7 July 2021). 82

302

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

­ eveloped and transmitted whole of the liturgical celebration of the d saints was not brought out optimally. What can be said about the mutual balance of the four evaluation criteria? The difficulties of the reformed calendar can be partially explained by the lack of such a balance. The first criterion was given more attention in the reform than the second, and especially than the third and fourth. The reform mainly focused on the Source of the tradition, and less on the appropriation of tradition by the recipient, the contemporary person and his or her community. There was too little attention for the body mediating between those two, the liturgical monument of tradition. This summary of results seems to indicate that the evaluation criteria functioned well in this case. They brought to light a number of strengths and weaknesses of the reform of the calendar.

Chapter XII

The Reforms in the Ritual of Monastic Profession Introduction In 1970, the Ordo professionis religiosae was published, an order of service for the ceremonies of admission into religious life, temporary and perpetual profession for men and women, as the implementation of article 80 of Sacrosanctum Concilium. This made available a ritual that offers a common framework for all forms of religious life, which is obligatory for all those who make or renew a religious profession during Mass, unless they have their own proper law.1 Its aim, in line with the wish of the Council, was to introduce more unity into the previously very colorful landscape of initiation into religious life.2 It does, however, emphasize the possibility of adaptations for the various religious institutes, which each have their own character and charism.3 Whereas the religious vows used to be part of the liturgy of the separate religious institutes, with this publication the rite was officially assumed into the liturgical books of the Latin Church, in particular in the Roman Ritual.4 It is not an existing ritual that was reformed or renewed, but rather a new liturgical ceremony was compiled on the basis of various elements of tradition. Can this be called a case of liturgical reform? Viewed from the perspective of the many traditions of religious orders and congregations, a new, reformed rite for religious professions was indeed introduced. The principles for this reform were indicated by the Council: unity, simplicity, and dignity. This one new rite, then, counts as the revised version of 1  Ordo professionis religiosae, in Rituale Romanum, editio typica. To gain a picture of the work of the Coetus in question, Coetus XXbis from 1966 to 1970, cf. Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, 763-765. 2  Sacrosanctum Concilium 80; Ordo professionis religiosae, Decretum, 5; praenotanda, no. 15. 3  Ordo professionis religiosae, praenotanda, no. 14. 4  Matias Augé CMF, “The Rite of Religious Profession in the West,” in Sacraments and Sacramentals, ed. Chupungco, 315-330, at 325.

304

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

numerous different earlier liturgical customs for entrance, investiture, temporary and perpetual vows for a large number of different religious families. This sixth case-study, testing the practical usefulness of four evaluation criteria derived from the concept of tradition, will be limited to the recent changes in the liturgy of the solemn profession of vows within this monastic tradition. In this case study, we will focus on the solemn profession in a number of Benedictine abbeys in the Netherlands and Flanders in particular. Vows that are taken in other forms of religious or monastic life will therefore be left aside. The reform of the liturgy of the solemn profession in abbeys of contemplative orders is a type of religious reform that is in a class of its own. Whereas the reforms of missal, liturgy of the hours, sacraments, calendar of saints and feasts, and other liturgical books presuppose an active role played by the central authority of the Church, the case is different for rituals that are specific to the monastic world. Here, the forms prevail that have been transmitted within the monasteries, and it is the conferences of abbots, or chapters, or bodies derived from these that commission revisions of the monastic liturgy. Moreover, abbeys and monastic congregations have a great degree of autonomy, so that liturgical changes differ and take place at different times and in various places in the course of a long time period.5 It is therefore more apt to speak of processes of reform in the monastic liturgy. 1.  Moments in the History of the Monastic Profession Christian monastic life, in eremitic or cenobitic form, dates back to the beginning of the fourth century. In the Egyptian desert, people retreated into solitude for a life of asceticism and prayer, as a radical way of imitating Christ. From the very beginning, the garment that the monks wore had a special significance. The monk’s clothes expressed the fundamental change of the new state of life. In the description of the entrance of a new brother into Pachomius’s large monastic communities in the first half of the fourth century, no mention is yet made of a vow. The ritual 5  This liturgical autonomy of abbeys is indicated in the Thesaurus Liturgiae Horarum Monasticae (Rome: Secretariatus Abbatis Primatis, 1977), an official publication for the reform of the liturgy of the hours. In the second section, the Directory 24, p. 16 notes: “Communitas monastica proinde, asserendo suam autonomiam in rebus liturgicis, …” See also the discussion of this above in the chapter VIII.3 in relation to the reforms of the monastic Compline.

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

305

is limited to the candidate removing his worldly clothing and being clothed with the monastic habit, after which he is brought to the brothers’ prayer service.6 “Entrance into the monastic life involves simply a change of clothing.”7 In John Cassian as well, this change of clothing is key, at the beginning of a period of learning and probation, a novitiate.8 Gradually, the custom of commitment developed, in the form of a monastic profession, a promise to follow the Rule and/or obey the abbot. This is particularly emphasized in the Rule of the Master (first half of the sixth century), coinciding with the renunciation of one’s own possessions as a donation to the monastery.9 The Rule of Saint Benedict, a few decades after the Master, largely bases its ritual of profession on what that Rule lays down. Chapter 58 gives the following components. After a year of preparation, the novice promises stability, fidelity to monastic life, and obedience, before God and his saints.10 This is the professio. With his own hand he then writes a petitio, a document or petition, signs it, and places it on the altar, which expresses surrender and dedication. Immediately afterwards, the novice begins to sing the verse Ps 118 [119]:116: Suscipe me Domine, “Receive me, O Lord,” repeated three times by the community and closed with a Gloria Patri. Then “the novice prostrates himself at the feet of each monk to ask his prayers, and from that day he is to be counted as one of the community.”11 The change of clothing is not mentioned until later, but according to some does take place earlier.12 This ritual is called professio super altare. Casel in particular emphasized that the profession is not only an act of the human will, but also a consecration and a blessing, an assumption into Christ’s self-gift to the Father. In many ancient Latin sources, the profession is also called consecratio or ordinatio.13 6  Pachomius, Monastic Rule, in Christoph Joest, Die Mönchsregeln der Pachomianer, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 660; Subsidia 134 (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 73. 7  Augé, “The Rite of Religious Profession,” 315. 8  John Cassian, Institutions, in Cassien, Institutions Cénobitiques, ed. Guy. Book I gives a complete list of the components of the monastic clothing with their meanings (34-55) and book IV, 5-6 deals with the ritual of investiture (126-128). 9  Regula Magistri; in La Règle du Maître II, ed. de Vogüé, 89, 370-379. 10  Regula Monachorum 58, 17-18. Fry, ed., The Rule of St. Benedict in English, 79. 11  Fry, ed., The Rule of St. Benedict in English, 80. 12  Odo Casel OSB, “Die Mönchsweihe,” Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 5 (1925): 1-47, at 23f. He assumes that Regula Benedicti 58 does not describe the whole ritual of profession, but that it is preceded by the tonsure (cf. Regula Benedicti 1:7) and the investiture. 13  Ibid., 13-26; Augé, “The Rite of Religious Profession,” 317.

306

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

During the life and after the death of Benedict, around 550, this rite of profession in his Rule was, in all probability, adhered to at Monte Cassino. However, the monastery on the monks’ mountain only survived until 581, when it was destroyed by the Longobards. The monks sought refuge in Rome. Over a century later, in 717, Petronax of Brescia once again settled near Benedict’s grave with a community in order to live a monastic life.14 Among those who established themselves as monks at that venerable location was also the Longobard Paul the Deacon, who probably entered in the year 774.15 The latter answered a request from Charlemagne for information about the monastic life with a letter, in which he also cites the formula of profession in use at that time. What is remarkable in this, is that of the three vows mentioned in the Rule, stability, obedience, and fidelity to monastic life, only the first two are mentioned. Researchers have concluded, partially on the basis of this fact, that in the times of Paul the Deacon the monastic tradition starting from Petronax was known, but no longer that of Benedict’s time, about 150 years earlier.16 There is, accordingly, a discontinuity in the tradition. The influence of this later practice of Monte Cassino on monastic life in the Frankish empire was great. From there, the rite of profession continues to develop. A questioning was introduced, possibly derived from the stipulatio in Roman law, to which the candidate repeatedly responds with promitto, “I promise.” Soon, following the example of the Eastern consecration of monks, the custom arises of saying a solemn prayer of blessing over the candidate.17 An important witness can be found in the profession formula of Flavigny (Burgundy, early eighth century), which was extensively studied by I. Herwegen and in which influences of Irish-Scottish monasticism can be found.18 Here, there is apparently a transition from the influence of 14  Ildefons Herwegen OSB, Studien zur benediktinischen Profess. II: Geschichte der benediktinischen Professformel, Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1912), 10. 15  Ibid., 11. 16  Ibid., 11-13. 17  Augé, “The Rite of Religious Profession,” 317. 18  Richard Yeo, The Structure and Content of Monastic Profession: A Juridical Study, with Particular Regard to the Practice of the English Benedictine Congregation since the French Revolution (Rome: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1982), 35f., rightly makes a critical remark regarding the interpretation of these, incidentally correct, historical data by Herwegen: “For Herwegen, the ninth century reform, canonised in the legislation of Louis the Pious at the Synods of Aix-la-Chapelle in 816-817, is a return to the Rule, manifested in the restoration of the threefold promissio prescribed by St Benedict. Today we should prefer to say that the ninth century reform was the beginning of different attitude towards the Rule and its institutions (…) an attitude which treats the Benedictine Rule as the monk’s law.”

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

307

the Rule of Columbanus to that of Benedict.19 In this formula, the influence of Frankish law can be strongly felt: the petitio here becomes a lifelong engagement in service of the abbot as a kind of sovereign, while the professio takes on the traits of an oath of fealty.20 There are also reservations in the text, such as “insofar as I am able…” Although no liturgical directions are given, the feudal rite of “extending hands” fits in with this, in which the monk places his folded hands in the hands of the abbot, as the vassal did with his lord. The German “loyalty” was given its place in the Frankish-Benedictine profession formula.21 The idea of the monastic way of life, conversatio morum, so important in the Rule of Saint Benedict, disappears in the vows after the time of Petronax and Flavigny. Instead, a mixture develops of Benedictine and Frankish law.22 To what degree and in what way the Rule of Saint Benedict was defining in the monasteries of this period is difficult to say. There were multiple influences and the role of local customs was great. Not until the first decades of the ninth century, as the profession book of St Gallen shows, a wind of change began to blow: influenced by the reforms of Charlemagne and Benedict of Aniane, the Rule of Saint Benedict became the law for monks.23 The reintroduction of the tripartite formula of profession and the disappearance of the reservations can be considered signs of this.24 Next to the Rules of the Master and Benedict, Theodore of Canterbury’s Poenitentiale25 was also an important source for Medieval profession rituals. It provides three prayers that were said over the head of the monk, with the character of epicletic prayers of consecration.26 Characteristic of this tradition is that it saw the profession as a second baptism, with the various parts of the rite referring to the elements of the baptismal celebration. In the Pontificale Romano-Germanicum of Mainz (950), we find the order of the non-eucharistic liturgy.27 It gives an Ordo ad faciendum monachum in which mention is made of removing one’s own clothing, renouncing the world, enduring injustice out of love for Christ,

 Herwegen, Geschichte der benediktinischen Professformel, 18f.  Ibid., 25. 21  Ibid., 26f. 22  Ibid., 32. 23  Yeo, The Structure and Content of Monastic Profession, 36. 24  Herwegen, Geschichte der benediktinischen Professformel, 37-45. 25  Originally a Byzantine priest from Tarsus, Cilicia, died in 690. 26  Casel, “Die Mönchsweihe,” 32f.; Augé, “The Rite of Religious Profession,” 318. 27  Vogel, Introduction aux sources de l’histoire du culte chrétien au Moyen Âge, ed. Botte, 190. 19

20

308

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

and being clothed with the monastic habit.28 Then follows an Ordinatio monachi, a copy of the ancient text by Theodore of Canterbury,29 which mentions the three prayers, complere super caput eius. These are the orations Dignare, Clementissime Dominator, and Omnipotens et misericors.30 A later version of this rite, based on this canon of Theodore’s, can be found in the Engelberg Codex 54, a representative of the Pontificale Romanum XII saec., which Casel includes in full.31 It includes the following elements: blessing of and vesting with the habit; tripartite promise; placing the document on the altar; bowing and singing the Suscipe me; prayers: Litany, Lord’s Prayer, preces, oration Dignare, oration Clementissime, oration Omnipotens et misericors. There appear to be two forms of the prayers of consecration: a Medieval Roman-German tradition, particularly in the Pontificale Romano-Germanicum, as well as a French, Cluniac tradition.32 These differ from one another in their divergent sequences of prayers of consecration. It is striking that in the Pontificale Romanum of the 12th century, the two traditions intermingle. The book gives both an Ordo ad monachum faciendum, with almost exclusively the text of a few orations, and, in the appendix, an ordo with the title Incipit ordo ad faciendum monachum, with a much more elaborate description of the profession ritual. Here we find, in a truly Roman pontifical, the Cluniac tradition of four prayers to the Holy Trinity: Deus indulgentiae Pater (only in the first ordo); Deus qui per coaeternum Filium; Domine Jesu Christe; and Sancte Spiritus qui.33 The same texts are found in the Pontifical of the Roman Curia of the 13th century.34 The other combinations of prayers, Dignare, Clementissime Dominator, and Omnipotens et misericors, are no longer to be found here. The next phase is the pontifical that Durand of Mende (1237-1296) composed in 1295 and that includes separate Ordines for De monacho vel alio religioso faciendo, “On the making of a monk or other religious,” and De professione novitiorum, “On the profession of novices.”35 The first of 28  Cyrille Vogel and Reinhard Elze, Le pontifical Romano-Germanique du dixième siècle, I and II (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1963), 70-72. 29  Augé, “The Rite of Religious Profession,” 318. 30  Pontificale Romano-Germanicum, 72-74. 31  Casel, “Die Mönchsweihe,” 34-38. 32  “Verantwoording van een herziening,” annex to Monastiek Rituale, publication of the Intermonasteriële Werkgroep voor Liturgie, s.l., 1980, 15. 33  Michel Andrieu, Le Pontifical Romain au Moyen Âge. I: Le Pontifical Romain du XIIe siècle (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1938), 174-176; 295-300. 34  Andrieu, Le Pontifical Romain au Moyen Âge II, 413f. 35  Andrieu, Le Pontifical Romain au Moyen Âge III, 397 and 398f.

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

309

these two in fact only deals with investiture. In this rite, the four prayers to the Holy Trinity are used. In the second rite, the profession is described. Recognizable are the Suscipe, the reading aloud of the text of the profession, and laying the document on the altar, after which the Confirma hoc is sung. There is no mention of other prayers of consecration. The pontifical of Durand, with the combination of the two rituals, became the basis for the Roman Pontifical as it was used starting from the Council of Trent. This book was now meant exclusively for episcopal celebrations. There, the ritual of profession was still present as the first phase of the blessing of an abbot (which was performed by the bishop), for those cases in which the abbot was not yet a monk.36 In this ritual, too, we find the four Cluniac prayers, but no longer the other combination. That these two sequences of prayers once again appeared together in monastic ceremonials in the nineteenth century, is the result of a form of historical restoration.37 Because this monastic ritual of profession keeps making a connection with the altar, this form is called professio super altare.38 In the second millennium, another form arises next to this monastic profession, initially only in the movement of canons regular in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This is the ritual of assumption into the novitiate, in which questioning and promise are important elements, followed by the immixtio manuum, the gesture of feudal fealty to the lord, as noted above. Apart from this the canons adhered to the monastic form of professio super altare. The new mendicant orders, however, which arose from the twelfth century onwards, opted for the professio in manibus. The Order of Preachers, for instance, was aware of the importance of mobility, in light of the universal, apostolic mission of this movement, in which a tie with a particular church or location no longer fit. For them, therefore, the profession took the form of a vow of obedience to the general superior, accompanied by the immixtio manuum. The Friars Minor also opted for a professio in manibus, during which they spoke the following 36  Augé, “The Rite of Religious Profession,” 319: “… to be performed in the totally anachronistic case where the abbot himself, just before his blessing, must make monastic profession.” 37  See e.g.: Cérémonies de la vêture et de la profession monastiques dans les monastères de la Congregation de France de l’ordre de Saint Benoît (Solesmes: Abbaye St Pierre, 1883), 16-22 and 28-34. 38  Augé, “The Rite of Religious Profession,” 319: “Ego frater N. voveo et promitto Deo et B. Mariae Virgini et B. Francisco et omnibus sanctis et tibi, Pater, toto tempore Vitae meae, servare Regulam Fratrum Minorum per Dominum Honorium Papam confirmatam, vivendo in obedientia, sine proprio et in castitate.”

310

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

formula: “I, brother N., vow and promise to God, the blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Francis and all the saints, and to you, Father, to observe for the time of my whole life the Rule of the Friars Minor, confirmed by the lord Pope Honorius, living in obedience, without property, and in chastity.”39 It is striking that we here for the first time see the term vovere (to make a vow or solemn promise) being used. Moreover, the three evangelical counsels of obedience, poverty, and chastity are mentioned as the object of this promise. In the middle of the twelfth century this had been done for the first time in a Parisian abbey, and in the centuries thereafter many would follow this Franciscan example.40 It was accompanied by the sign of placing one’s folded hands in the hands of the superior, the immixtio manuum, as the candidate’s promise of faithfulness and of the community’s commitment through the superior. Whereas in the old, monastic profession “on the altar” there is no reciprocal commitment but only a vow and the certainty of stability, here a relationship comes into being with obligations on both sides. In the centuries thereafter, a third form of profession would develop: that of the professio super hostiam. The Jesuits introduced this rite, in which the candidate spoke the text of his profession during Mass, shortly before communion, before the sacred host that was elevated by the priest. The explanation of this is that the profession was made, not in the hands of an ecclesial authority, but in those of Christ himself, while the communion that immediately followed was the sign of Christ’s acceptance and confirmation of the vow.41 Many modern congregations took up this practice. From the late Middle Ages onwards, the parallel with baptism as a death and resurrection with Christ also led to the practice of dramatizing the symbolic death, for instance by covering the candidate who is lying in the church with a shroud.42 M. Augé emphasizes that in the Western Church, the development of the form of religious profession is increasingly towards an individual, ascetic and legal act, and less as a mystery centering on Christ’s grace and blessing.43  Augé, “The Rite of Religious Profession,” 321f.  Ibid., 322. 41  Ibid., 322f. 42  Emmanuel von Severus, “Die Ordensprofess: Feiern Geistlicher Gemeinschaften,” in Sakramentliche Feiern II, ed. Bruno Kleinheyer, Emmanuel von Severus, and Reiner Kaczynski, Gottesdienst der Kirche: Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft 8 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1984), 176-181, at 177. 43  Augé, “The Rite of Religious Profession,” 324. 39

40

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

311

The nineteenth century is characterized by a revival of monasticism, connected, among others, with Dom Guéranger, the founder and first abbot of the abbey of Solesmes. He and his second successor, Dom P. Delatte, expended great effort to track down Medieval monastic traditions and base their liturgical practice on them. Their influence was great, through the French congregation but also through that of Beuron. An important liturgical-theological contribution was given by Casel in 1925, in the context of his theory on the liturgy as presence of the mystery. He argued that the Western rite of monastic profession should be seen, in line with the Eastern one, as a consecration and a mystery, a reception of the Spirit and a participation in an act of the Lord, a conformation to the crucified and risen Christ.44 He interprets the acts and prayers in this consecratory, epicletic sense. These ideas played an obvious part in the twentieth-century renewal of the profession rituals, in particular in the Rituals of the Bavarian Congregation (1920) and the Congregation of Solesmes (1952).45 In the renewal of the liturgy of the profession by order of the Second Vatican Council, which was already mentioned at the beginning of this section, these elements also come to the fore. In the compilation of this ritual, which is meant for all forms of religious life, the point of departure was clearly the ordo in chapter 58 of the Rule of Saint Benedict.46 Various Benedictine congregations have compiled their own monastic ceremonials on the basis of this reformed profession liturgy.47 2.  The Reforms in the Ritual of Solemn Profession This study focuses on monastic solemn profession in Benedictine abbeys in Flanders and the Netherlands, comparing the rites before and after the Council. Abbeys and congregations have a great deal of autonomy, so that both the publications and their dates can be strongly divergent. In other words, a monastery or group of monasteries or congregation may decide 44  Casel, “Die Mönchsweihe,” 21; cf. Yeo, The Structure and Content of Monastic Profession, 267f. 45  Yeo, The Structure and Content of Monastic Profession, 261, see in particular n. 53. 46  Von Severus, “Die Ordensprofess,” 177. 47  For example: Monastiek Rituale, with annex “Verantwoording van een herziening”; Monastisches Rituale, ed. Salzburger Äbtekonferenz (St Ottilien: EOS, 1988); Rituale Solesmense, Rituel monastique Latin-Français de la Congrégation Bénédictine de Solesmes (Solesmes: Abbaye St Pierre, 1990).

312

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

at any moment deemed appropriate to publish a revised edition. Because the number of solemn professions strongly decreased in the last few decades, there was no great sense of urgency to realize such publications. In the Dutch-speaking region, there have been two postconciliar publications, which will be compared with three ceremonials that were used by the Benedictines of the Low Countries before the Council. 1. A Comparison between Official Publications The rituals for solemn profession used in these congregations are: the Rituale Monasticum of Beuron (1931), the Rituale Vestitionum et Professionum (1952) of Solesmes, the 1962 ritual of the Congregation of Subiaco and two postconciliar profession rituals, the Flemish-Dutch Monastic Ritual of the Intermonasteriële Werkgroep voor Liturgie (1980)48 and the 1990 ritual of Solesmes. Together they span a period of almost sixty years. Moreover, they represent multiple trends and multiple congregations within the Benedictine order. The last two represent the renewed, revised liturgy, the third exemplifies a situation of transition. Taking this diversity into account, it is striking how many similarities are present in the five examples. The core elements are those from the Rule of Saint Benedict: 1. speaking the vows and placing the document on the altar; 2. prayer of the novice, prayer of the abbot and of the community; 3. vesting with the robe of the monk; and 4. kiss of peace as admission into the community.49 These four central acts can easily be recognized in each of the five rites: 1. the questioning and the reading aloud of the document; 2. the Suscipe, the Confirma hoc Deus, and the prayer of consecration; 3. the vesting with the cowl and accompanying text(s); and 4. the sign of peace given by the abbot and brothers, with accompanying psalms and the antiphon Suscepimus. What differences are there between the preconciliar ceremony and the reformed one? It cannot be said that there is a clear boundary between the first three and the last two rituals. The developments were gradual. 48  The Intermonasteriële Werkgroep voor Liturgie (IWVL, Intermonasterial Working Group for Liturgy) compiled this Ritual for “the Dutch-speaking monastic communities that live according to the Rule of Saint Benedict,” as the Preface states. The rite it proposes is thus meant for the Benedictine and Cistercian abbeys for men and women in the Netherlands and Flanders. A modest publication of eighteen pages was added under the title “Monastic Ritual: Account of a Revision,” which offers valuable information for the researcher and of which one might wish that it was more extensive and contained more historical data and literature. 49  Monastiek Rituale, “Verantwoording van een herziening,” 13.

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

313

We do see, however, that the Rituals of 1931 and 1952 include a few elements, both together and separately, that can no longer be found starting from the 1962 Ritual of Subiaco. Compared with both the 1931 and 1952 texts, the 1962 form omits the singing the Veni Creator,50 and places the Confirma hoc Deus at the end, after the blessing and the vesting. Contrasting the Ritual of Beuron of 1931 with both the 1952 and the 1962 rituals, the latter omit singing Mortus sum and Surge, the prayer Dignare during the blessing,51 and relocate the blessing of the monk after the vesting. As compared with the 1952 Ritual of Solesmes, the 1962 of Subiaco omits the four prayers to the Holy Trinity preceding the profession. It places the litany of all the saints at the close of the ceremony and has the hood being placed during vesting. The litany of the saints is not to be found in either the Rituals of Beuron or Subiaco. The two postconciliar books follow an ancient tradition, and let this litany precede the prayer of consecration.52 All these elements have their historical explanations, the most significant of which are considered below. In the opinion of the monastic liturgical reformers, some elements that had been added at a later date could be left out or moved, as already happened in 1962 in the Ordo of Subiaco and subsequently also happened in the other two. A notable development in the postconciliar rituals is that for some texts, various options are given. The Monastic Ritual offers three forms for the questioning of the monk that precedes profession, one in the text itself and two in an appendix.53 It also offers a choice of six different prayers of consecration, one in the text itself and five in the appendix.54 The Rituale Solesmense offers five prayers of benediction that historically were all prayed, but from which the abbot can now choose. Like in other books of the reformed liturgy, such as the Missal, it is also true of these new monastic ceremonials that they no longer offer a rite to be followed in its entirety, but at certain points give alternative texts, so that local and/or personal circumstances can be taken into account in the choice that is made. There are three differences between the old and new rituals that call for further clarification, specifically the placing of the Confirma hoc Deus; the prayers of consecration; and the translated ritual.  Introduced at the end of the thirteenth century in the Cistercian tradition, see Augé, “The Rite of Religious Profession,” 319. 51  Originating from an old, inaccurately dated Roman ordo, Casel, “Die Mönchsweihe,” 42 and 45. 52  Monastiek Rituale, “Verantwoording van een herziening,” 14. 53  Monastiek Rituale, 37f. and 51f. 54  Ibid., 42-45 and 53-62. 50

314

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

The placing of the Confirma hoc. The verse Confirma hoc Deus, originating in Ps 67 [68]:29, already occurs in the Regula Magistri as the prayer of the abbot immediately after the Suscipe. In translation it reads: “Confirm, O Lord, that which thou hast wrought in us, from thy holy temple which is in Jerusalem.” Because this prayer made way for an elaborate prayer of consecration, the Confirma hoc Deus was moved. On this point, the account of the revision given in the Ritual of the IWVL says: In most of the Benedictine congregations it had become the closing antiphon of the rite of profession. During the recent revisions, however, a return was made almost everywhere to the original use and this venerable text was once again given its place immediately after the Suscipe.55

This is indeed what the case in the three newest rituals considered here, which each place this verse after the Suscipe. The prayers of consecration. In Theodore of Canterbury’s Poenitentiale, we find the expression: “During the consecration of the monk, the abbot must perform the ceremony and say three prayers over his head …”56 These three prayers of consecration or benediction, said by the abbot, were apparently considered important from an early date. Multiple prayers were used for this in the course of history. We mention: 1.  Dignare Domine; 2. Clementissime Dominator with the 17 additions always followed by the Amen; 3. Omnipotens en misericors Deus; 4. the prayers to the Holy Trinity: Deus indulgentiae Pater; Deus qui per coaeternum Filium; Domine Jesu Christe; Sancte Spiritus qui…; 5. Deus omnis sanctitatis fons; 6. Adesto Domine. Of the texts considered here prayer 1 only occurs in the first cited ritual, that of Beuron. Prayer 2, with varying numbers of additions, is used in all but one of the rituals as the prayer of consecration. The exception is the only ritual in the Dutch language, which chose to only use contemporary prayer texts. The prayer that is included in the text itself originated in the abbey of Keizersberg, and appears to be an adaptation and abbreviation of the Adesto Domine. Prayer 3, which in the form of a solemn preface was for a long time the heart of the benediction of the monk, only occurs in the two oldest rituals and in that of Solesmes 1990 as an option. The combination of 55  Monastiek Rituale, “Verantwoording van een herziening,” 13: “In de meeste benedictijnse congregaties was het de slotantifoon van de professieritus geworden. Maar bij de recente herzieningen is men bijna overal tot het oorspronkelijke gebruik teruggekeerd en heeft men deze eerbiedwaardige tekst zijn plaats direct na het Suscipe teruggegeven.” 56  Cited in Casel, “Die Mönchsweihe,” 32: “In monachi vero ordinatione abbas debet missas agere et tres orationes super caput eius complere …”

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

315

(sometimes 1, but certainly) 2 and 3 is considered as belonging to the Roman tradition.57 Prayer 4 consists of a combination of three (or four) prayers, directed to the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit respectively, originating in Cluny.58 We find the prayers 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the 1990 Ritual of Solesmes under the letters A through E as optional texts, as mentioned above. Whereas the old ritual of Solesmes placed prayer 4 at the beginning of the ceremony and considered 2 and 3 as the actual prayer of consecration, the expectation now is that a choice be made between them. The final two, 5. Deus omnis sanctitatis fons and 6. Adesto Domine, are of contemporary origin. Deus omnis sanctitatis fons was taken from the Ordo Professionis Religiosae (1970), for which it was compiled by C. Vagaggini as the first option.59 The second prayer, Adesto Domine, comes from the Cistercian abbey of Tamié, Savoie; it was originally written in French and later translated into Latin.60 It calls to mind the elaborate Eucharistic Prayer IV, with its strongly salvation-historical emphasis.61 The content of both prayers fits in with the biblical, salvation-historical, and paschal theology of the Council. The Benedictine congregation of Solesmes probably chose to include five different optional prayers due to the diversity within the congregation.62 As to content, the following can be said about the prayers. Both 1 and 3 place a strong emphasis on the monk’s struggle against the vanities of the world, vices, and the devil. Prayer 2, Clementissime Dominator, which is most generally used, is mainly a prayer for fidelity. The striking succession of additions, with their repeated acclamation “Amen,” prays for a series of positive qualities. Prayer 4 is the combination of the three (or four) prayers to Father, Son, and Spirit. The first, that is often omitted, emphasizes the unworthiness of the candidate. The other three make reference to biblical items: (a) faith in creation and being created in God’s image, in connection with the incarnation and being clothed with 57  Casel, “Die Mönchsweihe,” 32-42; Monastiek Rituale, “Verantwoording van een herziening,” 15, speaks of prayers of the Roman-German tradition. 58  Casel, “Die Mönchsweihe,” 43; Monastiek Rituale, “Verantwoording van een herziening,” 15. 59  Statement by email on February 11, 2017, by P. Debout OSB, citing an unpublished internal source of the abbey St. Pierre of Solesmes. 60  This data is from the same email from P. Debout OSB, based on the same unpublished source. 61  This eucharistic prayer is based on the Alexandrian anaphora of St. Basil and summarizes the whole of salvation history. See Witczak, “The Sacramentary of Paul VI,” 158f. 62  P. Debout OSB in the cited email: “… sans doute, le fait qu’il y a une réelle diversité dans notre congrégation, a incité les membres de la commission du Rituel à proposer deux formules nouvelles.”

316

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

the new man; (b) the benevolence of Christ, with reference to the shepherd and the sheep and the text of Matt 11:28; and (c) a prayer for forgiveness, conversion, consolation, and perseverance, through the intercession of Saint Benedict, with a solemn trinitarian conclusion. Prayer 5, Deus omnis sanctitatis fons, is relatively short and contains salvationhistorical references to Abel, Israel, and Mary. It refers to the Paschal mystery and prays for the Spirit of holiness. The evangelical counsels occur in the description of consecrated life. Prayer 6, Adesto Domine, is a very elaborate text, of which some fragments can be chosen while others are omitted. It, too, is of a salvation-historical nature, that is, it refers to the revelation of God to his people, the forming of the covenant, and God’s path through history with his people. Moments come to the fore that are particularly reminiscent of monastic life, from the life in the desert where God spoke to the hearts of his people. There are also references to biblical figures who particularly represent the search for God, such as Abraham, Moses, the prophets Samuel and Elijah, the writers of the psalms, Simeon and Anna, John the Baptist, Mary. Of Jesus, the hidden life, humility, and obedience are noted. A series of great monastic fathers is also mentioned, leaving room for additions. Finally, the Holy Spirit is invoked for the candidate: “Grant him the fullness of the gifts of the Spirit,” with twelve additions which are all followed by an Amen (the whole is somewhat reminiscent of the series in the prayer Clementissime Dominator), in which, among other things, it is asked that the candidate will seek solitude and silence and will persevere in prayer, spiritual reading, and manual work. These last two prayers, the first concise and more general and the second longer and more specifically directed towards monastic life, express how consecrated life is rooted in the Bible. They are a fruit of the postconciliar return to the sources that is an essential part of the liturgical reform. In all the prayers, in varying proportions, we find three essential elements: praise or thanksgiving, anamnesis, and epiclesis. In this respect, these prayers call to mind the Eucharistic Prayer, which also always contains these elements, and the essential properties of all liturgy.63 Praise is mainly found in the solemn opening and in the doxology at the end of most prayers, as well as in the classic opening words of the preface. The anamnesis is given great attention in the newly composed prayers in particular. The epicletic aspect is expressed in the many pleas for protection,  Witczak, “The Sacramentary of Paul VI,” 154f. and Catella, “Theology of the Liturgy,” 21. 63

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

317

strength, and manifold virtues. In the third prayer of the Cluniac trinitarian sequence and in the final, newly composed prayers, the Spirit is explicitly invoked. These prayers of consecration underscore what Casel calls the “character of mystery” of the monastic profession.64 It is not primarily a personal, ascetic endeavor or a legal act, but a specific manner of being taken up into the Paschal mystery of Christ. His death and resurrection are made present in the ritual and in the life of the monk. Finally, a matter of liturgical form. At a certain point in the Middle Ages, the central prayer of consecration, Omnipotens et misericors Deus, was prayed in the form of a solemn preface, such as we are currently familiar with at the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer and in the Exultet during the Easter vigil. The prayer is preceded by the dialogue with liturgical greeting, the sursum corda, and the call to thanksgiving, a practice which existed up to the Second Vatican Council. For the consecration of the monk, this form disappeared at the time of the Council. The prayers are still used, but no longer with the opening dialogue. On the one hand, one can be sorry for the loss of the exalted tone and the thankful memorial that was expressed by this. On the other hand, the content of the prayer was not characterized by thankfulness or remembrance, but rather by a plea for help in the struggle against evil. The form of the preface was possibly also considered to be rather too strong an emphasis for the blessing of the monk. The translated ritual. In the present day, the monastic profession is usually celebrated in the vernacular. The monasteries that choose to perform not only the sung liturgy but also prayers and liturgical acts in Latin are a minority. This implies the requirement that the liturgy of the profession is also translated into the language of the country in question, in this case Dutch. After the NRL (Dutch National Council for Liturgy) had published the “Order of Service of the Religious Profession” in a general sense in 1976, the Benedictine and Cistercian abbeys issued the aforementioned Monastic Ritual, compiled by the IWVL and containing six prayers of consecration, in 1980. The “Account of a Revision” mentions the initial attempt to translate the traditional prayers into Dutch. Almost unanimously, the working group instead opted for “good, contemporary prayer texts” from the Dutch-speaking regions, because the language and content of the old prayers did not appeal to contemporary users. Of the six that were included, the first four originate in Dutch-speaking abbeys: the first, in the text itself, is from Keizersberg Abbey in Leuven, the  Casel, “Die Mönchsweihe,” 3, 20, 47.

64

318

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

s­econd from St. Paul Abbey in Oosterhout, the third from the Benedictines of St. Adelbert Abbey in Egmond, and the fourth from the liturgical commission of the Trappists. The last two originate in the translated Ordo of the Dutch National Council for Liturgy and are translations of the prayers in question in the Latin order for religious profession.65 The text accompanying the vesting with the cowl in the Monastic Ritual appears to be a translation of the traditional Accipe habitum. The term habitum sancti patri Benedicti is there represented as “the robe of the monk,” which does not seem to be an improvement. The prayer to be used in conjunction with this to bless the cowl, Domine Jesu Christe, was not included. The choice was made not to bless the cowl. The explanation that the compilers of the Dutch Ritual give, expresses their experience that traditional texts translated from the Latin do not always fit in with the contemporary sense of language and faith content, for which reason they decided to opt for new texts. This remark evokes various questions. What is the extent of the translator’s task in bridging the gap between past and present? How essential is it to retain old, transmitted texts, or to what extent is it necessary or desirable to compose new prayer texts? We are here dealing with the relationship between translation and inculturation. The comparison with the discussions about new Eucharistic Prayers is obvious, will be returned to below. 2. A Comparison between Liturgy Booklets For this section we made a comparison between five celebrations of solemn profession held in five Benedictine abbeys in Flanders and the Netherlands: St. Willibrord Abbey Doetinchem in 1981, St. Benedictusberg Vaals in 1983, Our Lady Abbey Oosterhout in 1988, the Keizersberg Leuven in 1992 and St. Adelbert Abbey, Egmond-binnen, in 2013. The term “liturgy booklet” is used to indicate the booklets that liturgical communities make as a form of assistance for the faithful. They are accordingly not meant for complete representation of the celebration or for an exhaustive description of the actions of celebrants and assistants. Usually the most important texts, possibly with translations, are printed. Not nearly all the details of the celebration can be recovered by means of these booklets. Nevertheless, they are the most important testimonies to the course of the ceremonies in question. Such representations of celebrations of profession were not always made or preserved. The choice  Monastiek Rituale, “Verantwoording van een herziening,” 15.

65

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

319

of these five is mainly motivated by the desire for an even distribution in time and place and a certain diversity is intentional. Due to the relatively small number of booklets accessible, this was only successful to a limited degree. There is a distinct ritual for the consecration of virgins normally used by nuns, however Our Lady Abbey makes use of the prayer for the consecration of monks instead, allowing greater comparison with the profession liturgy of monks; therefore this comparison considers one female and four male versions. These five celebrations do not stand alone, but intend to be part of a tradition, namely that of the postconciliar, reformed monastic profession. The profession liturgy of St. Benedictusberg is based on the Latin liturgy of a preparatory phase of the Rituale Solesmense (which at that time had not yet appeared in print), the other four derive most of their texts from the Dutch Monastic Ritual. Some influence of the Ordo professionis religiosae can also be discerned. The great similarity that we also found in the rituals discussed above, recurs here in the liturgy booklets. There is a great degree of agreement on the main elements, the texts to be used, and the order of service. There are four points, however, that require particular attention: the placement of the litany, the added rituals and texts, the choice of the prayer of consecration, and the translation and/or adaptation of the texts. The placement of the litany. The litany of the saints, also called the invocation of the saints, is found in different places in the various celebrations and is sometimes omitted. The latter is the case in the Ritual of Beuron (1931) and that of Subiaco (1962). The old ritual of the congregation of Solesmes (1952) placed it at the end of the ceremony. Both postconciliar, reformed monastic rituals choose to include the litany as the first phase of the prayers for the monk who has just made his profession. They thus differ from the general Ordo professionis religiosae of the Church, which places the litany before the profession. It is striking that the ceremony in the liturgy booklet of St. Benedictusberg places the litany at the very beginning, and thus deviates from the Rituale Solesmense which in its profession ritual, published eight years later, chooses to combine the litany with the prayer of consecration. The other four also do so; they let the litany precede the prayer of consecration and therefore conform to the Monastic Ritual. On this point the “Account of a revision” says: In the oldest sources and in the whole of the further tradition, the deprecatio litaniae is placed after the Suscipe and immediately before the prayer of consecration as an introduction to it, both in the

320

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

c­onsecration of monks and the consecration of virgins. This is in contrast with the place that the Ordo professionis religiosae gives the litany: at the very beginning of the rite of Profession. In the composition of our Ritual, we opted for the monastic tradition.66

The motive for this appears to be that the various elements of prayer for the professed form a unity and, according to the Rule of Saint Benedict, follow his own prayer. The added rituals and texts. The Ordo professionis religiosae mentions the option of handing the candidate the signs of profession, if this is called for in the customs of the religious community in question.67 For female religious, this is mainly associated with the ring. The Dutch Monastic Ritual, under the heading “supplementary rites,” here suggests handing over the book of hours or sacred Scripture, if this custom exists, as a reference to the special commitment to praying the liturgy of the hours and doing spiritual reading. The three most recent profession liturgies, those of Oosterhout, Leuven, and Egmond, chose to hand the candidate the book of hours, while in the case of the nuns the ring was also given. The ritual of Keizersberg Abbey also includes – after the questioning and before the profession – a fairly elaborate blessing, lighting, and handing over of the profession candle, image of a prayerful faith which shines out into the world. Supplementary texts were also found in the booklet from Oosterhout, where during vesting with the cowl and reception of ring and book of hours the professed nun sings a response each time, from Psalm 102 [103], Song of Solomon 8:6f., and Psalm 26 [27] respectively. This shows that, particularly in two of the five celebrations, a modest degree of liturgical creativity was applied, making use of traditional texts or symbols in a new way. The choice of the prayer of consecration. Above, we saw that the traditional Latin prayers of consecration occurred in two clusters. On the one hand the three prayers Dignare, Clementissime Dominator, and Omnipotens et misericors (with the first of these often being omitted) and on the other hand the four prayers to the Holy Trinity: Deus indulgentiae Pater, Deus qui per coaeternum Filium, Domine Jesu Christe, and Sancte Spiritus qui (with again the first often being omitted). Aside from those two often omitted, the other five occur as optional texts in the 1990 Ritual of Solesmes, supplemented with two new prayers, the origins of which were mentioned above. In the Dutch Monastic Ritual, there are six  Monastiek Rituale, “Verantwoording van een herziening,” 14.  Ordo professionis religiosae, no. 68, 32.

66 67

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

321

prayers of consecration, of which the last two originate in the Dutch translation of the Ordo professionis religiosae and the other four in Dutchspeaking abbeys. As noted above, the “Account of a revision” states that even in the case of good translations, these older prayers did not retain their significance. On balance, this means that the prayers for the consecration of the monk of the Western monastic tradition are no longer used in the translated, reformed profession liturgy, but have made way for “homegrown” prayer texts. These were accordingly used in the four celebrations in the Dutch language, namely the prayer “We thank You, God” from the text itself of the Monastic Ritual twice, in the liturgies of Doetinchem and Oosterhout; prayer III (“Be with us”) in Egmond and V (“God, Thou holdest”) in Leuven. Characteristic of all these prayers is that they place the monastic life in a salvation-historical framework, make many references to biblical figures, and all end with a plea for the Spirit and his gifts.68 The first prayer, that was chosen twice, makes use of multiple expressions from the two last, salvation-historically colored, prayers of the Rituale Solesmense and also applies the invocations with the repeated “Amen” as acclamation. The trend that is visible in the last two newly added prayers of the Ritual of Solesmes is strongly present in the prayers that were chosen in the Dutch-language liturgy: namely, situating the monastic ideal in the salvation history of Old and New Testament and the lives of the saints, inspired by the gospel of Christ and his Spirit. In the traditional prayers, in particular those of the German-Roman tradition, biblical elements were not absent, but they nevertheless placed more emphasis on the monk’s individual struggle against evil and vice. We can therefore conclude that the Ritual of Solesmes honors the traditional prayers of consecration as the first option (with the celebration in Vaals indeed choosing the first of those, Clementissime Dominator) but is not insensitive to a more salvation-historical approach, whereas the Dutch Ritual and the celebrations based on that fully opt for this second course. The translation and/or adaptation of the texts. The language of the five ceremonies studied varies from almost entirely Latin (St. Benedictusberg) to a mixture of Latin and Dutch (Our Lady Abbey, St. Willibrord Abbey, and Keizersberg) to entirely Dutch (St. Adelbert Abbey). Opting for a ceremony in the Latin language implies, in this case, that there is no room for personal elements in the prayers and hymns. The profession  On the term “salvation-historical” in this context, see above, XII.2.1, under “The Prayers of Consecration.” 68

322

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

expresses that the monk enters into the existing, transmitted space of this form of Western monasticism. Opting for an entirely Dutch ceremony leads, in this case, to a celebration with texts that are closer to the person and community in question and their times. The use of the informal form of address also points to this. The consequences of Vatican II’s choice to give the option of celebrating the liturgy in the vernacular here become very clear: on the one hand a more objective, on the other a more subjective liturgy. This is obviously a gradual difference. In the Latin service personal elements may have been present that have not been recorded (for instance in the homily) while in the Dutch liturgy, too, most of the elements of the Ritual are used. Here, however, a second theme comes to the fore. The profession liturgy of Egmond contains a few alternative or, in comparison with the Dutch Ritual, adapted texts. This concerns the questioning, the “Receive me,” and the litany of the saints. In the Monastic Ritual of the Dutch-speaking Abbeys, the questioning consists of four questions concerning lasting commitment (stability), life according to the Gospel (poverty, prayer), unwed life (celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God), and obedience and humility. Under the heading “optional texts,” the annex offers alternative texts for the questioning, of which Egmond chose the first. This consists of three questions that are shorter and successively deal with stability, monastic life, and obedience. As in the historical overview above showed, the oldest Benedictine tradition did not make mention of the two evangelical counsels of poverty and celibacy. These were summarized under the name conversatio morum, or a monastic way of life. Stability and obedience, however, were always included separately. This offers an explanation for why the Egmond profession liturgy is limited to three questions. In this, it is reminiscent of the preconciliar Benedictine rituals, of which the text was still followed by the Vaals liturgy booklet. There, these three questions are also asked, though they are preceded by a fourth: whether the monk is prepared to forsake the world. After this come the questions about conversatio morum (monastic way of life), obedience, and perseverance in this life state (stability). The new Dutch Ritual chose to give four questions as its first option, leaving out the question about forsaking the world, but with an extra question which makes the content of the monastic way of life more clear in, on the one hand, the terms poverty and prayer, and on the other unwed life. The mention of the three evangelical counsels (poverty, celibacy, and obedience) dates back to the middle of the twelfth century, from which point onwards it was initially spread by the Franciscans.

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

323

The second difference we find in the Egmond booklet is the deviant version of the Suscipe, the prayer that is sung solo by the monk or nun, immediately after profession. The Psalm text expresses the personal surrender to God and the request for acceptance. The literal text of Ps 118 [119]:116 in the Vulgate: Suscipe me Domine, secundum eloquium tuum et vivam; et non confundas me ab exspectatione mea, is in the first person singular. The liturgy of the St. Adelbert Abbey opted for an adapted text which reads: “Receive us, O Lord, as we are now present here. Encompass us in your life as a robe of light. Never desert us and do with us as Your heart dictates.” This text is sung by the monk making profession, followed by the doxology sung by the schola cantorum and the repetition of the verse by the congregation. Through the use of the plural form, the Psalm text is stripped of the element of a personal act and personal surrender, which makes way for a different aspect: the communal plea for acceptance by God. This is a clear shift of emphasis with regard to content, by means of an adaptation of a text from sacred Scripture. This is clearly a deviation from a venerable tradition handed down in the two monastic Rules, those of the Master and Saint Benedict.69 A third text that calls for attention is the form of the litany of the saints that was chosen. This sung invocation of all the saints traditionally begins with the Kyrie, next comes the invocation of Mary and the saints in historical order and possibly according to various categories, and then follows a series of intercessional prayers for the Church, the monastic community, and the professed one. A litany is an insistent prayer of supplication, meant to ask for the intercession of the saints for the specific intentions of that moment. The Egmond liturgy chose a variant in which one does kneel down, but “in communion with all the saints praises God’s name and sings of His faithfulness.” The refrain that is sung runs as follows: “In heaven is joy, the earth sings along: the faithfulness of the Lord lasts forever, hallelujah, hallelujah!” The saints, in their various ranks, are called on to praise God. Only the final two stanzas include a form of supplicatory prayer, such as in the closing intercessory prayers. Replacing a prayer of supplication with a litany consisting primarily of praise at this point in the liturgy is a fairly drastic change. However meaningful the song of praise may be in itself, the supplicatory prayer of the community, in communion with the prayer of the saints, following the profession, must surely be viewed as an indispensable element of the celebration.  Aquinata Böckmann, Mit Christus zum Ziel: Exegetischer Kommentar zur Regel Benedikts.Teil 3: Kapitel 53 bis 73 (Sankt Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 2015), 140f. 69

324

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

Besides the two main official sources, the Dutch Monastic Ritual and the Latin Rituale Solesmense, personal creativity also played an important part in the compilation of the liturgy booklets, particularly in the addition of rituals (Keizersberg) and texts (Oosterhout and Egmond), and the adaptation of texts or choosing alternatives (Egmond). Nonetheless, there is a reasonable degree of consensus between the five views on the profession liturgy with regard to structure, principal elements, and the content of the celebration. From the choices for the more biblically oriented prayers of consecration and the simplification of the ritual, it becomes apparent that it was mainly the first two stagnation factors that were given attention. The choice to use the vernacular and the adaptation of texts should mainly be understood in connection with the fourth and sixth stagnation factors, counteracting the lessened sense of community and the gap with contemporary culture. 3.  Evaluation of the Reforms The reform of the liturgy of the monastic profession is a lengthy process, of which we already see the first phase in the 1962 Ritual of the Congregation of Subiaco, and which in a sense continues with every new solemn profession. The Monastic Ritual of 1980 undoubtedly had the greatest influence on this process in the Dutch-speaking regions. For abbeys with a predominantly Latin, postconciliar liturgy, the obvious course is to accept the Rituale Solesmense as an important benchmark. Having charted the development and practical use of these rites, the four evaluation criteria can now be applied to this liturgical reform. In doing this, we will mainly assess the two postconciliar Rituals. These are, after all, the official reformed liturgy of the solemn profession in the area studied, which was accepted by the abbeys in question. In the background, however, the five concrete celebrations in which these rituals are put into practice will also play a part. 1. Is Christ’s Reality of Salvation Transmitted in This Renewed Liturgy? The Rule of Saint Benedict highlights imitation of and dedication to Christ. The main thing is to “not exalt anything above Christ, or above the love of Christ.”70 Where the Rule speaks of God, Christ is almost  Fry, ed., The Rule of St. Benedict in English, 4:21 and 72:11.

70

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

325

always also meant.71 Partly for this reason, it is obvious that Christ plays an important part in the profession liturgy according to the Rule of Saint Benedict. We see that He is mentioned often and that most elements that refer to Him occur in both the preconciliar as the reformed rituals. The questioning refers to Christ in both cases, the text of the promise is preceded by the name of Christ, the altar on which the document is laid is an image of Christ, the Suscipe is, according to the customary interpretation, directed towards Him, and in the litany Christ is called on. In the prayers of consecration there are differences. The first two variants in the Rituale Solesmense are possibly directed towards Christ and/or the Father, but his name is not mentioned in them. As stated, they have more bearing on the struggle of the monk or nun against evil. Of the three combined prayers to the Holy Trinity, the second is directed explicitly to the person of Christ. The final two, with their salvationhistorical approach, also have a strong focus on Christ. All the prayers of the Monastic Ritual, except the last one, have this Christocentric characteristic. The last one, prayer V, could be characterized as ecclesiocentric. The prayer, directed to Christ, to bless the cowl, was not included. In the prayers of consecration another shift of emphasis is detectable. In the reformed liturgy, the prayers of consecration that were most used in the past, Clementissime Dominator and Omnipotens et mise­ ricors, (partially) make way for prayers with a more salvation-historical content, in which the person of Christ also plays an important part. On the whole, however, it is not clear that the conciliar reform of the profession liturgy is of a more or less Christocentric nature. There are variants, but in the renewed liturgy as a whole, both Latin and Dutch, Christ’s salvation is clearly present. 2. Can a Person Understand This Renewed Liturgy and Experience It as Being Relevant? Of the two postconciliar Rituals, the Dutch one, as becomes apparent from the accompanying “Account,” most occupied itself with the question of how the ritual of monastic profession is perceived by contemporary people and whether or not it can be understood. This is also revealed by the fact that it opts for the vernacular, that it offers the option of making a choice between alternative texts, and the fact that prayers of  Balthasar Fischer, “Die Psalmenfrömmigkeit der Regula Benedicti,” in idem, Die Psalmen als Stimme der Kirche (Trier: Paulinus, 1982), 37-71, at 52-71. 71

326

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

consecration that were composed in the Dutch-speaking regions are used. The Latin Ritual, as applied in the celebration in Vaals, does not concern itself in terms of content with the question whether people can understand this liturgy and experience it as being relevant. The community does, however, offer the participants the aid of a complete, bilingual liturgy booklet during the ceremony itself. This expresses that it is indeed felt to be important that the participants can understand the words being said and sung. Of course, it is not only language that determines whether a celebration is understood and perceived as relevant. The Monastic Ritual opted for newly composed prayers, but it is not certain that these texts, probably written in the 1970s, are accessible for contemporary participants. Both the references to biblical characters and specific expressions and terminology, as well as the Christian outlook on life which is presupposed, may hinder recognition. Nor is it certain that a largely Latin liturgy leads to a stagnation of liturgical communication. It is not impossible that the rituals, songs, and mysterious atmosphere may lead to interest and even fascination on a different level. In such a personal celebration as a profession, however, understanding and experiencing the liturgy as relevant do not first of all concern the participants, who are either more or less closely involved. The question being discussed in this section should also be posed to the monk or nun making their profession. The variety of celebrations that we saw is, after all, an expression of the diversity of communities and individuals. We can therefore state with a great degree of probability that the religious concerned understand this liturgy well and consider it to be very relevant. Their communities as well, though not each element will speak to every member equally strongly, will perceive the celebration as a fitting expression of their way of life and convictions. Within the monastic liturgical reform, there is a certain degree of room to design traditional ceremonies such as the profession according to the personal choice of the professed and his/her community. This mainly concerns language and translation, but also additional texts and liturgical acts. We can conclude that by means of this limited diversity of rituals, the monastic liturgical reformers applied themselves to promoting the understandability and the recognition of relevance. 3. Is the Liturgy of Previous Generations the Same as This Renewed Liturgy? The third evaluation criterion assumes that the liturgy in question retains its identity throughout time. Has the profession liturgy that we studied here remained identical in the course of the centuries? This question does

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

327

not pertain to a literal, material conformity. Liturgy, as a form of tradition, develops and thus keeps changing. What is at issue, however, is that it is essentially the same thing being celebrated and done by means of the contemporary rite that the preceding generations, including the founder and the great reformers, meant to do. An important indicator for this is the presence of the main structural elements, particularly texts and acts. The changes primarily concerned texts and customs which the contemporary reformers did not consider to belong among the core elements: the Veni Creator, the ritual reference to death and resurrection with the hymns Mortus sum and Surge, and separately placing the hood on the head of the monk rather than a full vesting with the cowl. There are also elements of restoration of old customs: the position of the litany before the prayer of consecration, and the vesting with the cowl after the prayer of consecration. An important change in the tradition of Solesmes is that the four prayers to the Holy Trinity and the two prayers of the blessing of the monk, which previously were all said, are now offered separately as options to choose from, along with several new prayer texts. The possibility is thus given here to deviate from the traditional texts, just as it is in the Dutch Monastic Ritual, which exclusively offers new prayers of consecration. The Medieval preface-like form of the prayer of consecration has also disappeared. This Ritual also leaves out the blessing of the cowl. The translation of texts from Latin into Dutch is sometimes accompanied by a drastic adaptation and/or abbreviation. In a few places, one might indeed posit that a core element, such as the Suscipe and the litany of the saints in the celebration in Egmond, has been changed to such a degree that the identity of the liturgy is affected. It is mainly the need to, on the one hand, compose a shorter ritual, and on the other, to create a more appealing celebration, that may threaten that which is proper to the liturgy as it has been handed down. The accessibility and the relevance of a ritual constitute an important criterion. However, in order to safeguard the identity of a ritual it is important to represent the original forms with care. In general, the identity of a ritual is strengthened when the more original forms are either preserved or restored with historical knowledge and precision. In general, the heritage of tradition has been well preserved. The changes mainly pertain to elements of lesser importance. The ritual has been brought closer to its origin and has been given more clarity and purity. Most of the changes have strengthened the identity and help the profession liturgy to “be itself” more. This particularly applies to the structure as it is found in both postconciliar Rituals. The addition of

328

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

prayers of consecration of a strongly biblical and salvation-historical nature also has to be considered a strengthening of the identity of this ritual. Of some changes, such as the omission of the blessing of the cowl and the preface-like form of the prayer of consecration, it is unclear why they were introduced and whether they are an improvement. Only a few, such as the adaptation of the text of the Suscipe and the litany of the saints, damage a core element. What mainly attracts attention is the great degree of consensus between the various contemporary Rituals and the liturgy booklets that we studied, and the care that was taken in almost all cases in handing down the heritage. 4. Is This Liturgical Reform Marked by a Gradual Development? The fourth evaluation criterion has to do with graduality. Quick, radical, and abrupt changes are in danger of being too strongly led by temporary trends. The gradual implementation of reforms makes it possible to consider the effects when taking subsequent steps. Moreover, this offers more opportunity for the appropriation of changed elements. This criterion is important in the monastic liturgy as well. Because solemn professions are not an everyday occurrence and because abbeys naturally operate at a slow pace, we see that changes are in fact introduced very gradually. Before the Council, the congregation of Subiaco already began with a reformed ritual. This is a sign that the changes were already happening for some time. In 1980, a new Ritual was published in the then existing Dutch congregation. The new Ritual of Solesmes did not appear until 1990. A long time before these dates, there were already experiments with new profession rituals. At different paces and with different emphases, steps on this path were taken in the various abbeys and congregations. Here, graduality is not a point requiring special attention, but a matterof-course phenomenon. Because of this, there was sufficient opportunity for a consensus to arise. The current liturgy of the solemn profession, both in the Latin and in the Dutch variant, was not only compiled with care by the reformers and those who gave them their assignment, but was also well received by the monastic communities. Conclusions The four evaluation criteria appear to work well in the evaluation of the reforms of the monastic profession liturgy. The fact that they produce a

 CHAPTER XII: THE REFORMS IN THE RITUAL OF MONASTIC PROFESSION

329

mostly positive picture does not mean that they do not take the less successful aspects into account, but rather that according to these norms, this liturgical reform was on the whole handled in a proper way. Here, too, we end with asking after the mutual relationship between the four criteria in this case study. Is there a good balance? We have to conclude that there is no reason to doubt this and that all four principles were properly respected. The Christological aspect and the accessibility and relevance of this liturgy have remained the same or increased. The identity of this celebration was maintained, as the current profession liturgy is unambiguously placed in the Western tradition of this celebration. The gradual introduction of the reforms was observed without particular concern. In our view, there is a good balance in the reforms according to the four principles used. A sign of this is that there are no substantial discussions or differences of opinion concerning this form of liturgical renewal.

Chapter XIII

Finally: A Closer Look at the Evaluation Criteria We have discussed six case studies as examples of liturgical reform to which the four evaluation criteria were applied. In each of the cases these criteria yielded insight into the method of working in the liturgical reform in question and also revealed what the fruits and limitations of that work were. The results point in the conclusion that the renewal of the liturgy mainly led to the person and message of Christ being more clearly present in the reformed liturgy, and also to there being more points of contact that can help the participant in this liturgy experience it as meaningful. The other criteria yield a more negative result. The third criterion revealed a certain enrichment in one sense, because a greater variety of readings, prayers, and hymns is offered. However, this was outweighed by the fact that a lot of traditional material was deleted due to the shortening and simplification of the celebrations. With regard to the monument of the liturgical tradition, a strong emphasis was placed on change, of which the necessity was not always clear.1 In general, the renewal of the liturgy took place within a short time period and was also implemented quickly. In most cases, there was no gradual introduction of the changes. Insufficient justice seems to have been done to both the content of the depositum of tradition and the gradual mode of operation that is part of the nature of tradition as a process of handing down that depositum. Because only six relatively small elements of the liturgy were considered, these conclusions cannot be held to be definitive or generally applicable. They call for further, more large-scale and detailed research. The actual application of these evaluation criteria also provides further information about the criteria themselves. What can be added to the information on the criteria given in chapter VI? This final chapter will first of all closely study each of the four evaluation criteria, in order to 1  Prétot, “Vers une intelligence renouvelée de la réforme liturgique de Vatican II,” 44: “… les premiers temps de la réforme ont sans doute survalorisé l’aspect de changement et de nouveauté.”

332

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

discover what applying them made clear about their functionality (1). Next, it will discuss the question what the relationships are between the four criteria and particularly what tensions exist between them (2). Finally, the criteria will once again be connected with their origin in the theological concept of tradition (3).

1.  Each of the Four Evaluation Criteria after Use 1.  The Criterion of the Source In accordance with the emphasis on the central place of the paschal mystery that was expressed by the Second Vatican Council, the person of Christ was given much attention. He is the origin of the Christian tradition in his self-gift or self-surrender expressed by Kasper describing the tradition that begins with Christ as: the self-surrender of God through Christ in the Holy Spirit for the sake of his abiding presence in the Church. The first criterion is directly based on this. In VI.1, we saw that in a certain sense, this criterion fulfills a metafunction. It performs a critical task with regard to the whole of the Christian tradition. Because tradition in the Christian sense is the making accessible of the Source, handing down Christ and his gospel, it has to keep being assessed on the point of how well it performs this task. This criterion functions as a recalibration, an application of the original standard, the gospel, on the basis of which not only the liturgical tradition but also its reform is judged. In each case, to a greater or lesser degree a strengthening of the Christological dimension of the celebration was found. This came to the fore particularly in the explicit mention of the name of Christ and his death and resurrection. The first case study, on the prayers at the foot of the altar, suggested that in the old liturgy, Christ was represented more in signs and symbols. In the case of the calendar of the saints, the Christological dimension was enhanced by increased room for the celebration of the Sunday and for an evangelical interpretation of the saints. In other words, this first criterion is not only dependent on the explicit mention of Christ, but implicit presence also has an important part to play. Furthermore, it concerns not only the verbal, but also the ritual and symbolic presence of Christ. A point requiring particular attention is that in the Christian usage, the word “Lord” as well as the word “God” may refer to both Christ and the Father. This would appear to interfere with



CHAPTER XIII: A CLOSER LOOK AT THE EVALUATION CRITERIA

333

the application of the criterion, but is at the same time an enhancement. After all, we cannot separate the Son from his relationship with the Father and their Spirit. We also note that it is of course not only the fact that Christ is mentioned that is at issue, but also that which is said of Him. It is possible that different Christological views either supplement one another or clash. That which is said about Christ is at least as important as the fact that He is mentioned. For these reasons, this Christological criterion is not unambiguous. It can be used in support of various interests and various parties. It is therefore of the greatest importance that the first criterion is used with discernment. Moreover, it will have to be placed in an exegetical and theological context. A further refinement, differentiation, and diversification of this criterion is called for. 2.  The Criterion of Appropriation Whether a person is able to experience liturgical texts and acts as relevant is not only dependent on the liturgy, but also on manifold factors within them. Personal, communal, and cultural dimensions were distinguished above, of which the personal can be further divided into the physicalemotional, the rational, and the spiritual dimensions. In order to be able to experience a liturgy as relevant, it has to offer points of contact by means of which a person can identify with it, ideally on as many of these levels as possible. In applying this criterion, the reformed liturgy seeks to appeal more to the cognitive than the emotional level. As one might expect, the liturgical reform displays characteristics of the time in which it was implemented: the 1960s were characterized by a great optimism with regard to the possibility of transparent communication on a cognitive level. Intelligibility was improved, but in various examples no justice is done to the experience on an affectional level. Another aspect is the greater variety of texts and the introduction of optional elements, so that the chance of people hearing or experiencing something that speaks to them has increased. The importance of this criterion lies in the hermeneutical approach, since people can only be active participants in the liturgy if they experience it as meaningful within their own perception. In this, the human being is of course not a static or uniform creature. He or she undergoes development and growth, and also differs from others when it comes to experiencing meaning. The application of this criterion is therefore not simple. The liturgy aims to communicate with participants who are mutually quite divergent in their values, their experiences, their degree

334

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

of faith, and the extent to which they are formed and informed. It can therefore never be specific enough. In applying this criterion, we also regularly found that an unequivocal assessment of meaning and relevance is difficult to give. This criterion makes clear that the reform of the liturgy has to provide a diversity of possible points of contact, so that very different people can be reached on very different levels. It is even possible that this criterion demands taking conflicting measures. In our discussion of the reform of the calendar of saints, for instance, we saw that the dimension of popular piety was insufficiently respected, while the historical and rational approach of the saints predominated. This confirms our research into the stagnation factors in chapters V and VI: the liturgical reform mainly paid attention to stagnation in a cognitive sense, while the affectional dimension of transmission in the liturgy largely went unnoticed. Both are aspects of how contemporary people celebrate the liturgy, in a tension between their rational and emotional sides. The application of this second criterion accordingly demands an eye for the diversity and complexity of the hermeneutical situation of the participants. A more detailed elaboration of this is a desideratum for subsequent research. 3.  The Criterion of Identity The third evaluation criterion consists in the fact that liturgical reforms cannot be allowed to damage the identity of a liturgical celebration, or in other words, that it is to remain itself. This criterion is closely connected with the role of tradition as depositum, the heritage of liturgical texts and customs that functions as a medium between Source and receiver. The reforms often put parts of this heritage out of use. The difficulty, then, lies in determining to what extent this brings with it a partial violation of the celebration’s identity. Did the liturgy of the Eucharist undergo an essential change when the prayers at the foot of the altar were abolished? Did the old calendar of saints make way for a new one because in the course of the liturgical year eighty celebrations were removed and another seventy moved? Has Compline been replaced by a different final hour of the day because the opening texts and the closing prayers have for the most part been removed? Where does the boundary lie between “still the same” and “no longer the same”? In applying this criterion attention was paid not only to the generally acknowledged main elements, such as core rituals, psalms, hymns, ­Scripture readings, and prayers, but also to the seemingly marginal elements, such as smaller rites and customs, verses,



CHAPTER XIII: A CLOSER LOOK AT THE EVALUATION CRITERIA

335

greetings, blessings, responsories, and preces. The identity of a celebration, after all, is also dependent on characteristic elements that determine the atmosphere, the removal of which may be quite influential on a mainly emotional level. This criterion nevertheless remains difficult to apply. Its importance lies in a weighing of factors, liturgical elements, and arguments that is as broad as possible. In this way, one can strive for a maximally objective assessment of the importance of liturgical elements for the identity of a celebration. This criterion, however, is founded on the principle that one only removes or changes elements if there is sufficient cause to do so, as Sacrosanctum Concilium 23 prescribes on various levels. Further reflection is desirable on the question of what defines the identity of a transmitted liturgical ritual, with an eye to this criterion. 4.  The Criterion of Graduality The fourth evaluation criterion does not concern the content of a certain reform but the way in which it is implemented. Tradition is a form of handing down from one person, community or generation to another, a process that is characterized by graduality. Section VI.4, discussed the arguments for this and in applying this criterion its relevance became apparent. In some cases, too many changes were made in too short a time, in other cases the changes were spread out over a much longer time period. In the latter cases, there was the opportunity to adjust the reforms on the basis of the experiences of the liturgical participants, whereas the sudden introduction of a drastically and almost completely reformed liturgy offered little opportunity for gradual appropriation or partial correction. Based on the history of the reforms in the six case studies, in most cases the liturgists concerned and the responsible ecclesiastical leaders strove for a good quality end result, but did not take into account that ultimately, liturgy cannot be made but rather develops in the course of its repeated celebration. This cautious and provisional conclusion calls for further research on a larger and more detailed scale. Applying this criterion yielded very diverse results, because liturgical reforms take place and are introduced in very different ways. The reform of the liturgy of Epiphany or of the monastic profession took place in small steps over a long period of time, involving multiple generations and multiple ecclesiastical and monastic organizations. The reforms of the ordo missae and the calendar of saints, however, took place within a very limited time span, were overseen by limited groups of experts and Church leaders, and were implemented quickly and completely. In the

336

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

first two examples, the criterion of graduality was well applied, which likely also contributed to the appreciation and acceptance of the reforms in question, in contrast with the latter two cases. Because this criterion has bearing on the manner of implementation of a reform, it is also most closely related to liturgical praxis, and therefore runs into the limitation of this study. Historical and empirical research into the practical implementation of liturgical reforms is not part of its objective. There is an entire field of research surrounding the question as to how the reformed liturgy was received and in particular how the rapid introduction influenced the manner of celebrating the liturgy.2 2.  The Interrelationship of the Four Evaluation Criteria In applying the four evaluation criteria, the question arose as to their interrelationship. The four criteria should be applied in a proper balance with one another, without one or two predominating. In practice, however, it became clear that the first two were given the most emphasis in the liturgical reforms. What are the relationships among the four criteria? The application of the criteria provides a clearer sense of their interrelationships. 1.  The Hermeneutical Role of the Second and Third Criteria The first criterion, Christ’s self-gift, cannot be observed and applied in a neutral way. It is always approached through the lens of the contemporary person, with his or her expectations and preconceptions. Without criterion two, it is therefore impossible to apply criterion one. In the same way, the third criterion is also necessary in order to understand the mystery of Christ. In our view on the significance of Christ we are always influenced by history, the tradition of faith in Christ and his gospel. Elements from the monument of tradition influence contemporary Christological thought. The two criteria two and three therefore have an important hermeneutical role in the application of criterion one. At the same time, an overemphasis on the second or third may also come at the expense of the Christmystery, as noted in section VI.5. The Christological criterion will be a critical counterpart for the criterion of contemporary appropriation and that of mediating tradition. The latter two will let themselves be corrected  Klöckener and Kranemann, “Liturgiereform – Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes: Systematische Auswertung,” 1006. 2



CHAPTER XIII: A CLOSER LOOK AT THE EVALUATION CRITERIA

337

and formed, if this is necessary for the intelligible transmission of Christ’s self-gift. There is accordingly a reciprocal movement and influence between the Christological criterion on the one hand and the criteria of reception and mediation on the other. 2.  The Second and Third Criteria as Rivals Criterion two pertains to the way in which contemporary people receive, understand, and appropriate the transmitted heritage. Criterion three concerns the way previous generations dealt with the message of Christ and the results in terms of the liturgical forms, texts, and rituals. These two basic principles, which are each dependent on the other, are in practice often in competition with one another. The issue here is what lens we are looking through when we look at the source, to put it simply: the contemporary lens or the traditional lens. Someone who has a strong preference for one of these two, will easily fall short in the necessary attention for the other. The case studies found that the reformers usually emphasized criteria one and two as points of departure for the liturgical reform. Hermeneutically, they have mainly used lens two, while lens three seems to have been applied too scarcely. Insufficient justice was done to the mediating role of tradition. Due to these two criteria easily being at odds or working against each other, extra attention is needed in practice for a balanced and consistent application of these two. The concept of tradition as a process of transmission makes clear that the two hermeneutical positions, that of the person here and now and that of the influence of the monument of tradition, should not be separated or played off against one another. 3. The Fourth Criterion as a Method of Working That Proceeds from the Second and the Third The fourth evaluation criterion concerns the way in which liturgical reforms are implemented, namely gradually, in small steps. This criterion is important in order to make corrections possible, be able to incorporate new insights, facilitate gradual appropriation, while safeguarding against changes that are based on passing trends. Tradition, as a process of ­mediation between Source and receiver, is normally something that takes place gradually. Furthermore the human factor of the second criterion, viewed on its own, calls for graduality. The fourth criterion, the desirability of slow changes, is thus a method of working that stems from the

338

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

preceding two criteria. The two “lenses” through which one looks at Christ’s reality of salvation and through which the process of tradition takes place, function best in graduality. 4.  The Third and Fourth Criteria Closely Related The theological concept of tradition, discussed in chapter II, is comprised of three structural elements. The third of these is the monument of tradition, which mediates between origin and end and which functions in the process of tradition by means of which the gospel is handed down to each new generation. Liturgy makes use of the monument of tradition to pass Christ on in Word and sacrament. The third and fourth evaluation criteria are derived from the monument, and the process, of tradition respectively. Both express the fact that the celebration of this liturgy in the present is a part of an ongoing chain of tradition. The celebration of liturgy cannot waive the fact that previous generations celebrated the same liturgy and the way in which they did so, just as the reform of liturgy cannot ignore this. Liturgical reforms have to do something with the liturgical monument of tradition and are judged on this by means of the third criterion. Liturgical reforms are part of the process of liturgical tradition and are evaluated on this point by means of the fourth criterion. The two criteria together express the traditional nature of liturgical reforms. In applying these criteria, we found that they often act in concert. Particularly in the fourth and sixth case studies, the reform of the feast of Epiphany and the reform of the monastic profession liturgy, both the preservation of the main elements of tradition and the gradual implementation of the changes occurred in combination. These two case studies gave off a predominantly positive signal with regard to both the first two and the last two criteria, and are therefore the best examples of liturgical reform that does justice to its traditional nature. The two case studies also make clear that the last two criteria have an inner connection with each other and are consequently closely related. 3.  The Dialogical Objectivity of the Evaluation Criteria An obvious and important question is how objective the criteria are. Is this a neutral set of instruments that functions independently of the person applying it? Or, in other words, does its application by different people and in different circumstances lead to the same results? ­Obviously,



CHAPTER XIII: A CLOSER LOOK AT THE EVALUATION CRITERIA

339

the personal views of the researcher, his or her hermeneutical position, and the trends and views of a certain time will influence the results and the way these are worded. However, the criteria force the user to assume an intersubjective attitude. It belongs to the nature of these criteria, derived from the concept of tradition, that they are dialogical. Just as tradition is a conversation between the generations and between source, history, and present, so too do these criteria conduct a dialogue among one another. The gospel of Christ enters into a dialogue with the contemporary person and both make use of the way in which that dialogue was conducted in the past, the monument of tradition of the liturgy. We are not dealing, then, with an impartial measurement, but with the finding of truth in the conversation between the various structural elements of the liturgical tradition. In a dialogue that is conducted with care, respecting the contribution of each of the partners, a development towards impartiality and objectivity will be noticeable. More specifically, certain aspects of this method of evaluation advocate a proper measure of objectivity. First of all, in weighing the arguments as mentioned above, it is important to word them clearly. Not measurement, but argumentation is the method to obtain a certain objectivity. In this respect, the comparison between different liturgical reforms can be illuminating. In the case studies, we saw a clear difference in graduality between reforms that were implemented in small steps spread over multiple generations and through multiple organizations, and reforms that were introduced as one great project within a short time span. Such a comparison makes the latitude of the options clear. In the instances that arguments overlap with the personal values of the assessor, it is all the more important to search for an objective foundation. A second indicator of the objectivity of this method is its structure. As considered above, the criteria express opposing areas of attention: the first and second criteria are opposed to one another as source and end, while the second and third constitute competing but complementary ways of looking at things. The fourth is opposed to the other three as a methodological principle against points of departure that concern content. This dialogue between opposing aspects prevents this method from being one-sided or prejudiced. A third argument for the objectivity of this method is its origin. We derived the criteria from the structural elements of the Christian concept of tradition as it was described by two important theological minds. It is a widely accepted theological concept of tradition which is here applied to the evaluation of liturgical reforms.

340

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

4.  The Four Criteria Complementarily Express the One Tradition From the three structural elements of Christian tradition, the self-gift of Christ, the appropriation of this by the human person, and the monument of tradition that mediates between these two, I have derived four evaluation criteria. These four are not the equal sides of a square. There are relationships of dependence and competition and kinship among them, and the final two exhibit a certain parallelism. All four, however, are derived from the theological concept of tradition as it was studied in chapter II. They turn that concept of tradition into a set of instruments for evaluating liturgical reforms. The necessity and emphasis, called for in section VI.5, that they should be applied in a proper balance with one another becomes more apparent. To rephrase what was said there: only together and in balance with one another do they safeguard the traditional nature of the liturgy and therefore also of the liturgical reforms. As some of the case studies showed, when such a balance is not maintained, reforms yield a one-sided result. One or a few aspects of the liturgical concept of tradition are then insufficiently represented in the reform. Tradition, in the theological sense in which the word is used here, is a rich and complex concept. And it is precisely in this way that it has to be applied as an instrument of evaluation. The conversion of the concept of tradition into four criteria brings with it the danger of a certain estrangement. Applying the four principles separately could make the user forget that he or she is dealing with the one process of tradition. In section II.2.1, this process was described as one of transmission, that is the work of both the Holy Spirit and human beings. In chapter III, the particularity of the way this is true of the liturgy was argued for: in its celebrations, the liturgy realizes and actualizes that process of tradition. Because the liturgy is tradition par excellence, liturgical reform will also be so. The reform of the liturgy has to enter into the liturgical process of tradition and be a part of it, if it is to succeed. The four evaluation criteria form the building blocks of the one liturgical process of tradition. If it is truly to be Christian tradition, none of the four elements can be left out or minimalized. Conclusion The twentieth century, a time of unprecedented scientific and technological development, more than any previous century was a time of c­onfidence in what people can make. When the Church, in view of the



CHAPTER XIII: A CLOSER LOOK AT THE EVALUATION CRITERIA

341

liturgical stagnation on a number of points, decided to execute a largescale liturgical renewal, it was self-evident that this challenge was mainly considered to be a human responsibility, a work of human expertise, competence, and dedication. Over fifty years after its beginning, we can only feel respect for the execution of this huge operation, which was aided by the best efforts of numerous scholars and ecclesial policymakers. From the perspective of the topic of this study, however, certain questions must be asked. Was the traditional nature of the liturgy and its reform sufficiently taken into account? Should the intended changes not have been introduced over the course of a much longer period of time, for instance multiple generations, in order to give the process of tradition with its aspects of maturation, reception, and correction sufficient opportunity? Was the principle of the identity of the liturgy of a rite throughout time given sufficient consideration? Was there enough attention for the sometimes irrational nature of liturgical communication, which is partly a consequence of its traditional nature? Liturgical tradition is a dynamic process, in which Christ’s reality of salvation is handed down throughout time to each new generation of believers. It is a process that makes use of the mediation of the liturgical monument of tradition. Liturgical tradition is a work of reciprocity, of give and take, in which appropriation plays as great a part as that which is transmitted. Liturgical tradition is a work of the entire community, of all those who are together subject and object, participants in the liturgy. Liturgical tradition takes place in a network of numerous interconnected communities and forms a fabric that develops in the course of time and that does not find completion in history, but in the Kingdom of God. Liturgical tradition cannot be thought up, cannot be classified in a theoretical synthesis. Liturgical tradition is a divine-human process to which human beings contribute, but that ultimately cannot be managed by human beings. If liturgical reform wishes to work in the way of tradition, it will have to continue and participate in that dynamic, reciprocal, communal process that works through the liturgical heritage, cannot be completed, and is led by the Spirit. Liturgical reform is a part of the liturgical tradition and these characteristics therefore apply to it as well. A liturgical reform can only succeed, if it gives tradition room to do its work. The six case studies from various areas of the liturgical life of the Church that we discussed here do not offer a complete picture of the liturgical reform of Vatican II. Nevertheless the majority point to the conclusion that the reformers of the liturgy did not sufficiently take into account that the liturgy, as well as its reform, is a process of tradition,

342

PART II: SIX CASE STUDIES

with reforms taking place not so much as a once-only restoration, but rather as a lengthy, gradual process, making correction possible at all times. It was not our aim, however, to assess this liturgical reform in its entirety or even a large part of it. The main aim of this study was to search for instruments which could aid such an evaluation, the evaluation criteria, which are based on the patterns of liturgical tradition. In the end this study demonstrates that liturgy is the main form of Christian tradition, and the reforms of that liturgy should therefore be evaluated using criteria derived from a Christian concept of tradition.

= 100,2 mm

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706