CLOSING REMARKS

BY THE MOST REV. DONALD W. TRAUTMAN, STD, SSL
BISHOP OF ERIE

OCTOBER 26, 2007, JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY

Your Eminence, we are profoundly grateful to you for an insightful and inspiring presentation. Your scholarly and carefully reasoned critique of Catholic “Liturgy 40 years after the Council” has illuminated key aspects of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and has given all of us a deeper appreciation of that seminal document which set in motion enormous liturgical change --- a restoration of liturgy and an on-going reformulation of liturgical practice.

It is my privilege to share with all of you some reflections on the Cardinal’s evaluation of this 40-year period within the context of the worship life of the Catholic Church in the United States. Conscious of time constraints this evening, I will address just three main points:

1. Have “the profound intentions of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy been realized”? This was the question posed by the Cardinal in his opening remarks. During the past 40 years we have seen the people of the assembly become active participants in the Eucharist. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy ushered in the vernacular, restored the Prayer of the Faithful and restored the Eucharistic Cup to the assembly. The liturgical reform gave us the Church described as the people of God and lay people in various liturgical ministries, befitting their baptismal dignity. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy led to the preeminent role of Sacred Scripture in the liturgy and opened the storehouse of Scripture in a 3-year cycle of biblical readings. The liturgical reform led to a new emphasis on biblical preaching and the restoration of the catechumenate and Scripture-centered catechesis and ecclesial recognition of liturgical adaptation and inculturation. Our people have experienced this liturgical reform, and the vast majority has found it to be very good. But what are we now experiencing? Today many of the liturgical achievements of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy appear to be in jeopardy. Is there an orchestrated applying of the brakes to liturgical renewal? As Vatican II fades in time, is its influence fading as well?

For example, in returning to the Roman Missal of 1962 for the extraordinary form of the Latin Rite, we find that the Tridentine Mass has only 1% of the Old Testament and only 17% of the New Testament. And yet the Council Fathers of Vatican II strongly encouraged the promotion of Sacred Scripture in the liturgy as of “paramount importance” (CSL, #24). The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy states: “The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s Word” (#51). Contrast the Tridentine Mass’ use of Scripture with the ordinary form or our present Missal which includes 14% of the Old Testament and 71% of the New Testament. Too often Catholics have been accused by evangelical-fundamentalistic churches as being non-biblical. Permitting a wider use of a liturgy with an impoverished biblical foundation sends a mixed signal to contemporary Catholics seeking greater emphasis on the Word of God. There are also certain words and phrases in the 1962 Missal that offend our Jewish brothers and sisters and appear not in harmony with the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II.

The Council Fathers of Vatican II stressed in the Constitution on the Church and the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity the rights and responsibilities of lay men and women as co-responsible with bishops, priests and religious for Christ’s mission. In the Tridentine Mass there is no liturgical ministry for the laity --- only clerics or altar boys, not girls, assist in the liturgy. In the Tridentine Mass there is no part whatsoever for the lay faithful and yet the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy says in section 14: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.”

Granted that the permission for the wider use of the Tridentine Missal is intended for reconciliation of those who have demonstrated an attachment to a pre-conciliar liturgical form, but what is the perception? Many have seen this as a retreat, a backsliding from the liturgical principles of Vatican II, a movement away from a basic tenet of Vatican II, namely a return to sources and the early liturgy of the first Christians.

Scholars have also pointed to the instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, entitled Liturgiam Authenticam, which gives firm, inflexible directives for the translation of biblical and liturgical texts, resulting in texts that are not proclaimable or understandable. Liturgical language must be accurate and faithful to the original, but also reflective of a word order and vocabulary from the contemporary mainstream of the English language as spoken in the United States. If a translation --- no matter how exact --- does not communicate in the living language of the worshipping assembly, it fails as a translation, it fails to lead to full, conscious and active participation. This instruction was issued without reference to the Pontifical biblical Commission or the bishop members of the Congregation. This lack of consultation does not reflect well on the collegiality advanced by Vatican II.

Recent rulings of that same Congregation have forbidden extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to purify church vessels, even though they are permitted to distribute the Body and Blood of Christ. This new formalism marks a return to a pre-Vatican II mentality.

Have the profound intentions of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy been realized? The bishops of Vatican II read the signs of their times, and with the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit restored the liturgy. When we read the signs of our times, a candid assessment will reveal that the reform of the reform is in full swing. This is not the mindset of those who gave us the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. We do not need a reform of the reform; we need to revitalize the reform of Vatican II.

2. Cardinal Danneels has pointed out that excesses in active participation have led at times to “subtle manipulation” and “a sort of liturgical ‘coup’ in which the sacred is eliminated”. The Cardinal is pointing out the need for Transcendence in the liturgy, the need to appreciate Mystery in the liturgy. People respond to Transcendence and Mystery with awe, reverence, silence and what the Cardinal calls “a contemplative attitude”. I certainly concur but I would speak for a need to balance Transcendence with Immanence. The Tridentine Mass is an example of a Transcendent Liturgy. The Trindentine Mass was a child of the Council of Trent. It was certainly not the Eucharist of the first century nor even of the first millennium.

Those who advocate a reform of the reform believe that an experience of transcendence has been lost in the revised rites because of an over emphasis on the meal aspect of the Eucharist rather than the sacrificial aspect. They point also to the handshake of peace, casual greetings, the priest at the table facing the people --- elements that diminish the sense of mystery and awe.

An exaggerated attention to the sacred distorts the balance between transcendence and immanence. We must never forget that Sacred Scripture presents God under a two-fold image: King and Neighbor, transcendence and immanence. At times God shows himself as an awesome and powerful presence. God is the mighty monarch controlling the universe. Revealed as King, God prompts reverence and respect, awe and fear in his people. This is the transcendent image of God. We see an example of this in the Old Testament when God appears to Moses in the burning bush. Moses takes off his sandals because he is on holy ground, he bows his head. In the prophets, God emerges as the transcendent one. The foundation of the temple shakes before God’s presence. God presides with might and splendor.

In the New Testament, Christ is transfigured before the apostles. He appears radiant; his divinity shines through his humanity. In the Pauline epistles Jesus is the transcendent Lord, the Risen One, exalted on high, who knocks Paul from his horse on the road to Damascus.

At other times the Scriptures reveal God appearing like a neighbor --- friendly, close to his people, personal, human in appearance. Revealed in this fashion God inspires love, intimacy, fervor. This is the immanent image of God. Consider, for example, the first five books of the Old Testament. Here God is generally revealed as immanent: God strolls with Adam and Eve in the garden, God chats with them as a friend; God eats in the tent of Abraham; God appears as a cloud of glory over the ark and marches before his people as pillar of fire. God is close to his people and visibly involved in their struggles.

In the New Testament we meet the same parallel. The Jesus of the gospels is the revelation of God’s immanence. He eats and drinks with his disciples, he dines with sinners, he fishes with his apostles, he suffers disappointments, he lets people embrace him, he falls asleep in the boat. Yet the Jesus of the Pauline epistles presents a different appearance. For Paul, Jesus is the Risen Lord, the Glorified Lord. Paul never knew the Jesus who traveled with the apostles. Paul knew only the Risen Lord he met on the road to Damascus, and so he stresses the triumphant Risen Christ --- the transcendent Lord.

We must always keep in mind that the inspired Scriptures reveal God to us in a two-fold way, both through transcendence and immanence. Both are necessary for a proper understanding of the revealed God. Balance is needed. The delicate balance between transcendence and immanence must be maintained in our liturgy.

I see a corollary to immanence in that there is a vital link between liturgy and social justice, and that should be reflected in our teaching on the Eucharist.

3. The Cardinal stresses that “liturgy is neither the time nor the place for catechesis --- it has excellent catechetical value but it is not there to replace the various catechetical moments in the life of Christians”. In my humble opinion, this position of the Cardinal could be better nuanced. After all, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “The liturgy is “the privileged place for catechizing the people of God” (#1074). The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy states: “The sacred liturgy … contains much instruction for the faithful” (#33).

The noted liturgist Josef Jungmann (my former professor) makes this same point. He writes that in the fourth century, Church institutions were lacking. There was an extensive organization of charity supervised by the deacons, but there were no Christian schools. “The Church gave no systematic catechetical instruction to the children; their religious training was left to the parents. The Church made no special provision for the care of youth … All this was lacking … and yet there existed a flourishing Christian life, for there existed a living liturgy.” (The Early Church to the time of Gregory the Great, Notre Dame Press, 1980, pp. 165-166)

The liturgy substituted for other programs and institutions. The Church of the 4th century was gradually transforming the pagan society of the day into a Christian society. Jungmann asked how did this happen? Jungmann demonstrates that it was the experience, the influence of liturgy that transformed society.

The Christians of the fourth century had a living liturgy. They participated. They learned not by theory but by activity. They learned by doing. A good illustration of this was their offertory procession. It was obligatory for all to take part. The entire congregation joined in the offertory procession on Sundays and feast days. The chief characteristic of living liturgy was unity in the assembly --- all prayed together, all sang together, all cried out their responses, all offered at the same time, and all or nearly all received the Holy Sacrament.

In the fourth and fifth centuries, we see that liturgy was the formative factor. In those days, important institutions, programs, and structures were lacking which we rightly consider essential and indispensable. But, there was a living liturgy. The liturgy was the school. The liturgy was the religious education program. The liturgy was the adult education program. Liturgy was the evangelization program. The liturgy was the impetus to social action and the living liturgy was the privileged place for catechizing God’s people.

We are all indebted to Cardinal Danneels for critiquing and synthesizing the “Liturgy, 40 years after the Council”. He is an exemplary pastoral leader who has lived and implemented the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

More than ever, we need to hear the words from the Church’s first and greatest theologian, Paul of Tarsus. In his first letter to the Thessalonians (1Thes. 5:19) Paul says: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not stifle the Spirit.”

These are words for us. The Holy Spirit was present at Vatican II and gave the universal Church new direction. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, given to us 40 years ago, must continue to breathe new life into the Church. Let us say with Paul, “Do not quench the Spirit.” “Do not quench the Spirit.”