00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Contact Us

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TOWARD A RHETORIC OF LITURGY:
A RHETORICAL STUDY OF THE REFORMED LITURGY
OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
by
Aelred Robert Rosser
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(English)
August 1983
UMI Number: DP23094
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
' a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP23094
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
TH E G R A D U A TE SCHOOL.
U N IV E R S IT Y PARK
LOS A N G ELES. C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
pV).D.
£
' 8 &
£328
This dissertation, written by
AELRED ROBERT ROSSER
..................................................................................................
under the direction of his.... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
DISSER TATIO N C O M M IT T E E
r 7
i i
Acknowledgmen ts
Although I claim responsibility for what lies within
these pages, i t would not have come into being without the
help and support of many friends and co-workers. I am pro
foundly grateful to all of them.
W. Ross Winterowd, my advisor and the chairman of my
dissertation committee, has earned a crown of laurel for his
in fin ite patience and unflagging concern for me and for my
work. Lawrence Green has inspired me with his acute in
sight and his dedication to fa ir and thorough scholarship.
Stephen Krashen has been encouraging and supportive since my
f i r s t seminar with him several years ago.
I am indebted above all to my monastic community, the
monks of Conception Abbey, who have supported me with their
prayers and love during the years of my graduate study. My
superior, Abbot Jerome Hanus, has applied the g-oad and the
gentle nudge in equal and, apparently, effective measure.
Novice John Joyce has been of great help to me--as much by
his joyful s p irit as through his typing and word-processor
s k ills . Last of a l l , but f i r s t in affection, are Father
Reginald Sanders and Brother Blaise Bonderer, whose friend
ship has been my mainstay during the more d i f f ic u l t days.
It is to them that this work is dedicated.
i i i
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................... . . . . 1
Chapter One: The Purpose and Meaning
of L i t u r g y ................................................. 49
Chapter Two: Liturgy as Ritual Action . . . . 72
Chapter Three: Language as Scenic in
the L i t u r g y ...................................... . 106
Chapter Four: The Rhetorical/Liturgical
Stance • • . . . • • • • • • • • 141
Chapter Five: Liturgical Means: Verbal
and Non-Verbal...................................... 160
Chapter Six: The Value of Liturgy as
Restricted Code . ................................... 181
Endnotes..................................................... ...........................................194
Bibliography ........................................... 204
Appendix: Sacrosanctum Concilium
The Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy ....................................... 209
Introducti on
The idea of formulating a rhetoric of liturgy f ir s t
came to me when I read the final pages of Wayne Booth's
stimulating book Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.
There he writes:
[I]n a world that talks of the threat of
alienation and the loss of community, we have
found a community that everyone can assent to:
as old as Adam and as new as this morning's
newscast, i t is the community of those who
want to discover good reasons together.
It is not a comfortable community nor a
stable one. Even those who join i t consciously,
and systematically . . . cannot provide a con
venient l i s t of gods and devils, friends and
enemies. But at the same time i t can give us
some ease in whatever subcommunity we have a l
ready assented to.
Since rhetoricians are always happy to be
bound to time and place, let me conclude with
a local application. Like everyone else, I
have been fascinated by--and strangely involved
in--the recent rhetorical turmoil within the
Roman Catholic Church. Some would say that
your community is falling apart, torn not by the
sharing of good reasons but by the loss of common
standards^. I suppose i t will not help anyone very
much for a rhetorician to come along and assert
that the good Lord, the Logos in whom we have our
being, is on both sides in such battles, that He
is in the very process of assent and denial that
seems to be tearing you ap a rt.1
Two things struck me when I f i r s t read those paragraphs.
First, i t was gratifying to hear a rhetorician of Booth's
2
stature address himself, even b riefly, to the "turmoil
within the Roman Catholic Church," a turmoil in which I had
then been deeply involved as monk and priest for about f i f
teen years. Second, I was delighted to hear Booth say,
almost blithely, "rhetoricians are always happy to be bound
to time and place." It was at that moment, I believe, that
I began to make a transition from "student of rhetorical
theory" to "rhetorician." That is, I began to app1y the
theory I had been studying- - app1ying it to the real world of
discourse, beginning with a rhetorical setting which I founc
myself a part of every day: the liturgy of the mass. From
that point on, I had the growing conviction that rhetoric
could be put to profitable use in the attempt to bring order
to the liturgical chaos which came in the wake of the Seconc
Vatican Council and its publication of the Constitution on
the Sacred Liturgy. IiV this document, the very f ir s t pro
mulgated by Vatican II (on December 4, 1963), the assembled
leaders of the Church announced that they saw "particularly
cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of
the liturgy." (Art. 1)2
The "turmoil" Booth mentions extends far beyond the
realm of the liturgy, of course, but it is safe to say that
3
the turmoil is perceived most widely in the extensive
changes in the way in which the Church worships--in other
words, in the liturgy. .
My question, then, is this: "What can rhetoric do to
c la rify our understanding of liturgy?" Can rhetoric be
applied to the liturgical situation in such a way that it
will help clear the muddy waters, and even forward the
current development of liturgy? And then, is such an appli
cation going to result in a rhetoric of liturgy? Supposing
for the moment that it would, what would a rhetoric of
liturgy look like? What would it do?
In addressing these questions, I turn to another book by
Wayne Booth. In The Rhetoric of F i c t i o n ^ he systematica11y
demonstrates the lack of efficacy in abstract rules for wri
ters of fic tio n . In other words, Booth describes the rhe-
toric of fiction (how a writer achieves his purpose) by
explaining what it is not--despite a long tradition of
attempts to formulate abstract rules which when followed
will make fiction work. The rules may be useful as topics
for discussion or as simply one way to look at technique,
but they are not guaranteed means to a guaranteed end.
Likewise, it seems clear to me that no abstract rules
for worship will ever guarantee efficacious liturgy (formal
worship which achieves its purpose). And, though it may
seem painfully obvious to say so, there are no concrete
rules which will make such a guarantee either. In the pages
that follow, I demonstrate why this is clear to me. Such a
demonstration puts me somewhere outside most of the work
liturgists have done since Vatican I I . It also hints at the
place where I find myself: among modern rhetoricians. My
intention here has been to examine the contemporary l i t u r
gical scene from a rhetorical point of view. Thus I define
myself as a rhetorical c ritic of that phenomenon, that world
of discourse, called "liturgy."
A word of exp 1anation . is necessary here for the reader
who is not familiar with the Roman Catholic Church's defini-
tion of liturgy. When I limit my considerations in this
study to the mass, I omit a great deal of ritual worship
which the Church includes in the term "liturgy." The public
recitation of the Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) is a
major part of liturgy. Likewise, in addition to the mass
(the Eucharist), the other six sacraments are liturgical
celebrations. While most of these (Baptism, Confirmation,
Penance, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick)
are frequently celebrated within the context of the mass
5
today, they need not be, and are liturgies in their own
right. They too are excluded from my study, except for cer
tain instances in which they bear particular weight on my
discussion of signs, symbols, and ceremonies. Finally, the
liturgical service called Eucharistic Blessing (formerly
referred to as Benediction) is o ffic ia l liturgy according to
the Church, but is not central to my present study. My aim
has been to deal with that act of public worship which the
Church considers supreme--the mass, which is, in fact, com
monly referred to simply as "the liturgy."
The mass is also referred to, these days, as "the new
liturgy," despite the fact.that it is almost twenty years
old in its present form, rThis fact reminds m e that I should
also explain that my study is from the viewpoint of what is
s t i l l called "the new rhetoric," although it too has been
around a long while--to be as precise as possible, since the
1930's,’ when rhetoric began once again to mean more than
purple prose.
Both the new rhetoric and the new liturgy retain
many of the traditions from which they spring. This is
obvious, surely, and might not need to be said, except to
prevent the reader from being surprised when he or she
6
encounters a great deal of "classical" rhetoric and
"traditional" liturgy in the pages that follow.
In naming myself a modern rhetorical c r it ic , I depend tc
a degree on a definition of rhetorical criticism as found in
The Prospect of Rhetoric, a collection of essays, reports,
and recommendations prepared by some forty scholars involvec
in The National Development Project on Rhetoric.4 Not all
would agree with the following definition of rhetorical cri-
ticism, nor do I, except insofar as it broadens the
rhetorician's fie ld of inquiry. At the same time, however,
it limits the concern of rhetoric too much if the words
"persuasive effect" are understood too narrowly.
Nevertheless, the definition was a factor in my decision to
pursue the thesis of this study, and it is therefore rele-
vaht in these introductory pages.
Rhetorical criticism is to be identified by
the kinds of questions posed by the c r it ic .
This position involves a shift in traditional
emphases from identifying rhetorical criticism
by material studied to identifying it by the
nature of the c r i t i c 's inquiry. Implicit in
this shift of emphasis is an expansion of t r a
ditional concepts of rhetorical subjects. W e
shall no longer assume that the subject of
rhetorical criticism is only discourse or that
any c ritic studying discourse is ipso facto a
rhetorical c r it ic . The c ritic becomes rhe
torical to the extent that he studies his sub
ject in terms of its suasory potential or
persuasive effect. So identified, rhetorical
criticism may be applied to any human act,
process, product, or a rtifa c t which, in the
c r it i c 's view, may formulate, sustain, or
modify attention, perceptions, attitudes or
behavior.5
These words were a clear invitation into the world of
litu rg y--a world of suasory discourse--and into the verbal
and non-verbal ritual exchange which constitutes the liturgy
of the mass. However, it is not the subject which makes my
work rhetorical; it is the method and nature of my inquiry.
In other words,
. . . any c r i t i c , regardless of the subject of
his inquiry, becomes a rhetorical c ritic when
his work centers on suasory potential or per
suasive effects, their source, nature, opera -
tion, and consequences . 6
My intention, then, has been to examine closely the
suasory potential and persuasive effects of the liturgy--a
phenomenon in human discourse which has recently undergone
extensive changes. I have joined a host of others who are
concerned about the same phenomenon, and from various points
of view. Toi/add my voice to the confusion would be
fru itless if I were not convinced that the art of rhetoric
and the work of well-known modern rhetoricians can add
something positive to the process of discovery which so many
are engaged in.
8
The Origin, Aim, and Method of This Study
This study is prompted, ultimately, by the Second
Vatican Council, which convened in 1962 and continues to
exert its effect throughout the world. The f i r s t document
promulgated by the Council was Sacrosanctum Concilium
(December 4, 1963) or The Constitution on the Sacred
Li t urgy, and the fact that i t was the f i r s t of the sixteen
major documents composed by the Council Fathers already
says something about the urgency of its subject. The open
ing paragraphs state quite clearly both the aims of the
Council in general and the reason why the liturgy is cru
cial in achieving those aims:
This sacred Council has several aims in
view: i t desires to impart an ever increasing
vigor to the Christian l i f e of the fa ith fu l;
to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own
times those institutions which are subject to
change; to foster whatever can promote union
among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen
whatever can help to call the whole of mankind
into the household of the Church. The Council
therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for
undertaking the reform and promotion of the
1i turgy.
For the litu rg y, "through which the work
of our redemption is accomplished," most of
all in the divine sacrifice of the eucharist,
is the outstanding means whereby the faithful
may express in their lives, and manifest to
others, the mystery of Christ and the real
nature of the true Church. (Art. 1-2)
9
It is immediately clear from these introductory words
that the Council realized two things: (1) efforts at
renewal of any institution are evident f ir s t of all in what
ever mode that institution uses to express its e lf exter
nally, and (2) changes in the external expression of what an
institution is automatically imply alterations in its very
essence, whether such alterations are intended or not. To
change the liturgy of the Church is to change the Church
its e lf in many important ways. This is not to say that the
Church's belief and expression of that belief are identical;
rather it asserts that the union between belief and
expression of belief is so close as to make the two mutually
determinant. This is nothing more than an app1ication of
the principle lex orandi, lex credendi (which may be
translated "As one worships, so will he believe"). But more
must be said about this later, for it raises major her
meneutical questions in a post-structuralist age, when
determinate meaning is seen as an impossibility.
The documents of Vatican II state over and over again
that no change in universally held dogma or doctrine is
intended. Nevertheless, it is clear by hindsight that the
radical changes in the liturgy have brought with them an
10
atmosphere in which doctrine has been debated, questioned,
and studied in ways unknown since the Council of Trent in
the sixteenth-century.
The liturgy of the mass has been at the center of these
discussions, and so, consequently, has the theology of the
mass. New forms of expression have emphasized certain
truths over others, as one would expect, and the result has
been considerable confusion over which liturgical forms
express most clearly the truth of eucharistic theology.
Contrasting portraits of the mass before and after Vatican
II wi11 i 11ustrate this point and indicate the importance of
stressing it at the beginning of this study.
Before and After Vatican II
Before Pope John XXIII called the bishops of the world
together for the Second Vatican Council, the ordinary
layperson considered the liturgy of the Roman Catholic
church to be permanent and immutable.7 The ritual had been
fixed for several hundred years. Even the Council of Trent
(1563) made only rela tiv e ly minor changes, in the interests
of uniformity, and any serious thought of major alteration
in the Roman Rite was rare.^ The so-called "Liturgical
Movement" had begun to be a recognizable force for reform at
n
the beginning of the twentieth century, but the effects of
the effort were f e lt by few and were limited compared to the
reforms of Vatican I I . 9
The ordinary pre-Vatican II layperson viewed the mass as
a timeless, unchangeable, formalized re-enactment of the
sacrifice of Ca1 vary--unb1oody, wrought in sign and symbol.
The central part of the mass had come to be the moment of
"consecration," at which, through the power of the priest's
words, bread and wine were transubstantiated into the actual
body and blood of C h rist.10 Only the accidents (appearance)
of bread and wine remained; the substance of the sacred e le
ments was Christ's flesh and blood. The worshipper saw him
self as a privileged witness to this miracle on the altar
and bowed his head in awed silence. He was witness to the
miracle of the "real presence" brought about by the power of
the priesthood, the pronunciation of the Latin formula, and
the will of Christ that this action be repeated until the
end of time. The degree of the worshipper's participation
in the liturgy varied somewhat, but he was, by and large, a
spectator--and content to be so, since his role coincided
with his understanding of what the mass was supposed to be--
and do.
12
In dramatic contrast to this scene, the post-Vatican II
layperson is heard to describe the mass in such terms as
these: a re-enactment of the Last Supper, wherein Jesus
gathered with his special friends to celebrate an agape--a
love feast. The central part of the mass is the com
munion, when all present share a holy meal of bread and wine
which now signify the glorified body and blood of C h ris t.H
The worshipper sees himself as co-consecrator in virtue of
his share in the universal priesthood of Christ. Not a
silent spectator, but a vocal participant, he is reminded
that all Christians are members of the Mystical Body of
Christ and share a brotherhood which is to be expressed in
daily living through loving deeds and cheerful service.
Both sketches are oversimplified, of course, but not
without truth and purpose. In actuality, one can find
litu rg ical celebrations today in which both views are
expressed and at which both attitudes are present.
Nevertheless, it is important to see the shift from the "the
Nholly Other," to "Jesus, our Brother," and to account for
that shift in terms of the effect produced by recent changes
in the liturgy.
The aim of Vatican II was to insure the fu ll par
ticipation of the people in the liturgical action:
Mother Church earnestly desires that all
the faithful should be led to that f u l l ,
conscious, and active participation in
liturgical celebrations which is demanded by
the very .nature of the liturgy. Such par
ticipation by the Christian people as "a chosen
race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a
redeemed people" (I Pet. 2:9; cf, 2 :4 -5 ), is
their right and duty by reason of their bap
tism.
In the restoration and promotion of the
sacred litu rg y , this full and active par
ticipation by all the people is the aim to be
considered before all else; for i t is the p r i
mary and indispensable source from which the
faithful are to derive the true Christian
s p i r it ; and therefore pastors of souls must
zealously strive to achieve i t , by means of
the necessary instruction, in all their
pastoral work. (Art. 14).
To involve the people in dialogue with the celebrant
(singing, praying together, serving in the roles of minor
ministers at the altar) did not involve alterations in the
theology of the mass. The mass remained what i t had always
been according to the mind of the Church: an unbloody re-
12
enactment of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.
Nevertheless, as a direct result of the changes and the
involvement of the people in the liturgical action to a
greater degree, a new popular "feeling" about the mass has
emerged. Once the mass was rendered more accessible, i t was
14
bound to be seen in a different light--less awesome, less
God-centered and more man-centered, less "magical," more
informal. Rendering the texts in the vernacular did more
than any one single change to bring the mass into the realm
of quotidian re a lity . The sense of mystery, the hieratic
element, gave way to a sense of the casual, the ordinary,
13
an d the . i n t,i ma te on the purely human level. A rein
terpretation of what the mass stood for, proclaimed, and re
enacted became inevitable. The delicate tension between
distance and proximity (the closeness of an inaccessible
"Word become flesh") will always be d i f f ic u l t to maintain.
And controversy became inevitable as well. Those who
treasured the mass as a dramatic sign of a higher order of
existence f e lt the new liturgy to be du ll, uninspiring, and
"protestant" in its plainness. Many who embraced the new
liturgy f e lt i t to be a r e lie f from a rite which seemed
cold, distant, irrelevant, and easily confused with
magi c . ^
It is with these opposing reactions to litu rg ic al change
that this present study is primarily concerned. Apart from
theological arguments, the liturgy of the mass is a human
experience, efficacious or not in terms of the effect it has
on those who participate in i t . The liturgy is a unique
IE
part of the universe of discourse, pre-eminently rhetorical
in that it seeks to achieve in the participants an inten
sification of assent to communally accepted values and
beliefs. The Council clearly intends (as, indeed, the
magisterium of the Church has intended from the beginning)
for the eucharistic liturgy to be the principle of unity
among Catholics:
While the liturgy daily builds up those
who are within into a holy temple of the Lord,
into a dwelling place for God in the S p irit,
to the mature measure of the fullness of
Christ, at the same time it marvellously
strengthens their power to preach Christ, and
thus shows forth the Church to those who are
outside as a sign lifted up among the nations
under which the scattered children of God may
be gathered together until there is one sheep-
fold and one shepherd. (Art. 2)
And even more specifically, later in the document:
Liturgical services are not private func
tions, but are celebrations of the Church,
which is the "sacrament of unity," namely, the
holy people united and ordered under their
bi shops . (A rt. 26)
The Constitution discusses adaptation of the liturgy to d i f
ferent cultures and temperaments, making clear that a rigid
uniformity is not the aim of reform. The concession is
cautiously worded, however, and implementation of it is left
to later documents and litu rg is ts . There is, in this, an
16
indirect assertion that uniformity of expression is
desirable whenever possible.
Even in the liturgy, the Church has no
wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters
which do not implicate the faith or the good
of the whole community; rather does she
respect and foster the genius and talents of
the various races and people. (Art. 37)
Provisions shall also be made, when
revising the litu rg ic a l books, for legitimate
variations and adaptations to different groups,
regions, and people, especially in mission
lands, provided that the substantial unity of
the Roman rite is preserved; and this should
be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and
devising rubrics. (Art. 38)
The Council members were obviously concerned about
"rhetorical stance," which is a matter of adapting one's
posture to specific circumstances, attitudes, and situa
tions. The term is Wayne Booth's, and I shall return to i t
frequently, for the notion of rhetorical stance is central
15
to any consideration of efficacious liturgy. The quota
tions above serve to point out the importance of the prin
ciple of unity in the minds of the Council Fathers--an em
phasis which makes current divisions in the Church seem the
more ironic. As we saw e a r lie r , Booth has noted the irony:
Some would say that your community is
fallin g apart, torn not by the sharing of good
reasons but by the loss of common standards.
I suppose i t will not help anyone very much
for a rhetorician to come along and assert
that the good Lord, the Logos in whom we have
17
our being, is on both sides in such battles,
that He is in the very process of assent and
denial that seems to be tearing you a p a r t.I6
The process of assent and denial is at the heart of this
study, and the search for common standards is its principal
aim.
Getting Down to Cases
Surely one of the most dramatic cases of unrest caused
by the liturgical reforms.can be seen in Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre. Despite censure and the threat of excom
munication, this elderly French prelate has continued in his
refusal to accept the changes brought about by Vatican II .
And he has acquired a large following among those who defenc
the old tradition. An a rtic le in Newsweek magazine records
a recent battle in this conflict between Lefebvre and Rome.
As 3,000 of the faithfu l watched, rebel
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre again defied the
Vatican and ille g a lly ordained 28 priests at
his tra d itio n a lis t seminary in Econe,
Switzerland. . . . It was a four-and-a-half-
hour Latin ceremony that harkened back to old
days of the Roman Catholic Church, before
Vatican Council I I . . . . Lefebvre's recent
ordinations . . . clearly challenged the new
Pope to resolve the church's ever-threatening
litu rg ica l schism and reconcile the d iffere n
ces between the two men. For ten years,
Lefebvre has waged a conservative battle
against the reforms of the Second Vatican
Counci 1--especially the vernacular Mass--and
his traditional brand of Catholicism has
caught on. In addition to Econe, rebel semi-
18
naries now exist in West Germany, Argentina
and the U.S. Since 1974, Lefebvre has
ordained 89 priests and become the leader for
140,000 Catholics around the world. In 1976,
Pope Paul VI suspended Lefebvre from his
priestly duties and there was talk of excom-
mun i cat i on . 17
By way of ludicrous contrast, I know of an instance in
which a young priest gathered an "underground" community in
a private home for the celebration of the mass. Seeking the
most relevant signs and symbols, the priest thought it
appropriate and meaningful to celebrate the Penitential Rite
(a communal confession of sin with which most masses begin)
in the bathroom. Appointing himself "scapegoat," he
instructed the faithfu l to write their sins on t o ile t paper
and then wind the strips of inscribed tissue around him. At
the absolution, the t o i le t paper was torn from the "victim"
*
and flushed down the commode.
These examples are from the extremes of the controversy.
The day-to-day disagreements and preferences are less drama
t ic , of course, but nevertheless present in the Church on a
wide scale. Worshipping communities which have encountered
change in the ritual they venerate, have usually experienced
division, anger, disappointment and scandal to one degree or
another. In saying this we are simply noting the power of
19
ceremony in general--for good or i l l . Historical i l l u s t r a
tions could be chosen almost at random. One particularly
we 11-presented and detailed account is found in Gordon
Zeeveld's work, The Temper of Shakespeare's Thought, in the
chapter entitled "Ceremony."
. . .[A ]fte r the Reformation, ceremony be
came above all an inducement to p o litica l
order. To Elizabeth, it was a condition of
rule. This semantic shift might be expected
in the reign of a monarch among whose many
virtues a deep religious feeling cannot be
numbered. Her reaction to. the candles at her
coronation, "Away with those lights," should
not be interpreted as a desire to do away with
ceremonies. Well she knew the value of tr a d i
tion. When the state assumed pastoral care in
her father's time, ecclesiastical rites and
ceremonies had automatically become part of
its responsibilities. An a ffa ir of state had
become a state of affairs that would please
neither the papists who would oppose any
change nor the reformers who regarded ceremo
nies as emblematic vestiges of papalism and
who would not be content with less than a
clean sweep. The establishment of a middle
way between these two extremes was a delicate
though essential task, complicated by the fact
that violation of the laws of a state church
could be logically interpreted as t r e a s o n . 18
When we recall that Archbishop Lefebvre risks excom
munication (damnation implied) simply by sticking to a rite
which was the o ffic ia l one for five hundred years, but now
happens to be altered, we can see that external ceremony is
s t i l l held to be extremely powerful. Once again, the
20
Church's belief in the principle lex orand i , lex credendi
asserts its e lf with great force.
Those who at f i r s t welcomed the Vatican II changes with
enthusiasm, and who s t i l l feel that the new rite is a great
improvement over the old, nevertheless very often sense a
prosaic s t e r i l i t y which leaves them unmoved sp iritu a 11y .19
The predictable results of change? And is it only a matter
of time before we discover a new r ite which will better
satisfy the religious hunger for the experience of the
transcendent, as well as the warmth of Christian fellowship?
Surely, change is d if f ic u l t and transition periods are
discomfitting . But change is more d if f ic u lt when what is to
be changed is f e lt to be permanent. Likewise, change which
affects the deeply personal areas of faith and belief and
religious conviction may be expected to have a more
tumultuous reaction than change which does not invade such
intimate areas of one's l i f e .
No doubt the bishops assembled in council foresaw a
period of adjustment, a time of discomfort and doubt
regarding the wisdom of changes in something so honored by
time and trad ition . A plethora of documents, instructions,
and guidelines has come in the wake of Vatican I I , indi-
c r
eating the Church's awareness that the business of renewal
would not be an easy matter. And as a matter of fact, the
contemporary scene is considerably quieter than it was in
the decade immediately following Vatican I I . The pendulum
image is peculiarly appropriate in this instance: it swung
from the very far right to the very far le ft and is now
settling into a less dramatically wide arc.
Liturgy as a Human Experience
The above sketch has been painted with bold strokes and
primary colors. There is, in re a lity , an enormous variety
of shades, shadows, and shapes on the contemporary l i t u r g i
cal landscape. Nevertheless, the sketch is not inaccurate,
nor is it an over-dramatization of the existing situation.
Feelings run very deep indeed where personal convictions of
faith and religion are involved, and the way in which those
convictions are formulated, reaffirmed, and expressed must
be founded on more than a reasonable and in t e llig ib le body
of dogma, or, for that matter, on the fickle urges of the
human heart. The entire human experience is relevant here,
and in all its confusing and lovely manifestations. The
most efficacious litu rg ical expression is going to be that
one which states clearly the reason for the existence of the
22
mass, and which strikes a responsive chord in the depths of
those whose Christian faith is reaffirmed by it — in their
minds and hearts, their social allegiances, and their
1anguage.
Modern rhetoricians such as Kenneth Burke, Wayne Booth,
and Chaim Perelman concern themselves with the entire arena
of human exchange, and so find themselves at home in dealinc
with litu rg ical discourse. They examine motives, purposes,
means, and goals. They are concerned with reconciliation of
opposites, de-escalation of conflict, mutual understanding,
and the communication process. It is my conviction that
these modern rhetoricians can help explain current problems
in liturgy, and can shed light on potentially successful
solutions to those problems.
Isolating the Problems
In a collection of articles entitled Toward Vatican
I I I : The Work That Needs to be Done, Luis Maldonado contri
butes very perceptive insights into the contemporary
litu rg ic a l climate. He identifies three major d if f ic u ltie s
with the new liturgy, bringing them together under a t r i p a r
t i t e schema. I have adopted Maldonado's formulation as my
own in this study and will apply to it the work of rhetori-
23
cians whose concerns make them amenable to an analytical
search for solutions. Noting the ironies involved in
progress, Maldonado writes:
The liturgical reform has brought about
three outstanding and clearly positive
accomplishments: the rediscovery of the Word,
the adoption of the vernacular, and the accep
tance of the secular sense both in and of the
1i t urgy.
The positive nature of these accomplish
ments is evident and we shall not enter into
it now. On the contrary, we must single out
the problems brought about by these positive
acqui s i t ions.20
The emphasis on the Word, he says, has led to the
multiplication of texts, commentaries, spontaneous prayers,
and dialogue, to the neglect of the equally important non
verbal aspects of liturgy such as gesture, symbol, and sign.
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy said simply:
That the intimate connection between words
and rites may be apparent in the liturgy: 1)
In sacred celebrations there is to be more
reading from holy scripture, and it is to be
more varied and suitable. (Art. 35)
Also, the sermon or homily was emphasized as an integral
part of the litu rg ical action, and instructions in the form
of short directives were, if necessary, to be given by the
priest or another competent minister. Actual practice has
seen many variant forms of implementation of these direc-
24
tives, most of which reflect the understandable enthusiasm
which the vernacular liturgy created. Once the mass was in
English a deluge of words followed. Like young children whc
have discovered their a b ilit y to communicate, those who
planned and carried out liturgical actions became fascinatec
by the sound of their own voices. At the same time, the ner
r it e had been shorn of many gestures, non-verbal signs of
reverence and prayer--which, of course, made the new
m u 11 ip 1ication .of words all the more obvious.
The second accomplishment Maldonado lists is the in tro
duction of the vernacular into the liturgy:
The introduction of native languages has
fa c ilita te d communication and has strengthened
the catechetical value of the liturgy, as
called for in Sacrosanctum Consilium, art.
33; nevertheless, there has been a very
simplistic one-dimensional understanding of
the nature of what communication and cateche-
sis are all about, for they have been iden
t if i e d with rational i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y . It is
here that we find the reason for the strongly
r a t io n a lis tic , in te lle c tu a lis tic and didactic,
or doctrinary, character of the new l i t u r g y . 21
The Constitution makes its e lf clear on the primary aim of
liturgy when it begins the section on the educative and
pastoral nature of the litu rg ical action with these words:
"Although the sacred liturgy is principally the worship of
the divine majesty it likewise contains much instruction for
25
the fa ith fu l" (Art. 33). This is an important restatement
(echoing the Council of Trent) of a constant in the history
of the Church: liturgy is primarily worship of the God who
has intervened in human history. When it takes on a predo
minantly educative, catechetical tone, something is awry.
Finally, Maldonado sees as genuine progress the accep
tance of a sense of the secular in liturgy. It is here,
however, that important distinctions and qualifications must
be noted. The preoccupation with "relevance" in contem
porary liturgy accounts for the appearance in ritual
celebrations of such things as news items, propaganda, moral
issues, and so forth. Maldonado observes:
It is here that the liturgy has gained a
strong prophetic character. This prophetic
character implies three things: (1) an
announcing of the presence of God and of
Christ in current events; (2) a denouncing of
the concrete situations of sin; (3) an exhor
tation directed toward the Christian and the
community calling them to a commitment in the
struggle to solve such problems.
This recovery of the prophetic sense of
Christian worship is a positive fact;
nevertheless, it has posed a number of
problems which perhaps can be summed up in
one. Let us enumerate them:
- - A p o litic iza tio n of the liturgy. . . .
--A loss of identity of the litu rg ic al act
(a moment comes in which a clear dis
tinction is not seen between cultic
assembly and party, union, neighborhood
meet i ngs , etc .) .
26
--A concealment of the gratuitous nature
of the liturgy. This signifies two
things: (a) the liturgy is an end and
not a means; it cannot be "instru
mental i zed" as a launching pad for
action; (b) the liturgy is welcome,
praise, thanksgiving, hope against all
hope; that is to say, it is a recogni
tion of the unmerited, of that which is
given to us, of grace.
--An overemphasis and poor understanding
of the sense of evangelization in the
liturgy. Liturgy is certainly evangeli
zation . . . ; nevertheless, it is also
predominantly another thing, as has just
been stated. It is not primarily a
means of conversion, and even less if
conversion is understood in a moralistic
sense as a springboard for any concrete
a c t i o n . 2 2
These trends fa ll under the one heading "prophetic," anc
Maldonado feels that the liturgy since Vatican II has become
predominantly prophetic. As Kenneth Burke has argued, and
as I shall contend, form has given way to information;
celebration has given way to cerebration.23 /\ strong empha
sis on "the Word" is characteristic of worship services in
certain Protestant denominations in which the central a c t i
vity is the sermon. This is not to condemn those whose
liturgies are primarily verba 1/r a tio n a 1 . It is rather to
make the important distinction between liturgy as a means to
an end (prophetic) and an end in its e lf (gratuitous). Nor
27
is the purpose here to pit one form of worship against
another, or one tradition against another. The purpose,
rather, is to see where the current dissatisfaction with
reformed Catholic liturgy lies and to note, as well, the
growing inclinations even of those who are accustomed to
highly prophetic liturgies toward less didactic and
information-centered services- - and toward ritual which is
richer in symbol and non-verbal proc1amation.24
The three problems with the new liturgy according to
Maldonado may be stated simply:
(1) A multiplication of words and a corresponding
neglect of non-verbal elements has resulted in a r ite which
is overburdened with verbal content.
(2) The introduction of the vernacular has led to an
overemphasis on rational i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y .
(3) The secularization of the liturgy has concealed an
essential part of its nature as gratuitous celebration and
has overemphasized the prophetic element to the point where
liturgy is experienced as a means to an end.
I have addressed myself to these three problems as a
modern rhetorician would by developing a methodology based
on modern rhetorical theory and practice.
28
Methodo1ogy
One of the most useful methodologies available in modern
rhetoric is Kenneth Burke's "Pentad," a way of viewing any
human situation. It is explained in the briefest possible
form in Burke's introduction to his work, A Grammar of
Mot i ves.
W e shall use five terms as generating
principle of our investigation. They are:
Act, Scene, Agent, Agency, Purpose. In a
rounded statement about motives, you must have
some word that names the act (names what took
place, in thought or deed), and another that
names the scene (the background of the act,
the situation in which it occurred); also you
must indicate what person or kind of person
( agent) performed the act, what means or
instruments he used ( agency) , and the purpose.
Men may violently disagree about the purposes
behind a given act, or about the character of
the person who did i t , or how he did i t , or in
what kind of situation he acted; or they may
even insist upon t o t a lly different words to
name the act i t s e l f . But be that as it may,
any complete statement about motives will
offer some kind of answers to these five
questions: what was done (act), when or where
it was done (scene), who did it (agent), how
he did it (agency), and why (purpose).25
Using these five terms as reference points from which tc
view any given situation, Burke arrives at a view of the
whole only after a free-wheeling examination of the parts
and their interrelationships. Similarly, by using the
Pentad to examine the litu rg ic a l situation, we are enabled
29
to look at the elements of liturgy and to see relationships
among them which, when heeded, may be determinative in
litu rg y's effectiveness--that is, in the a b ilit y of liturgy
to achieve its purpose. It would be a mistake to attribute
anything like absolute definitions to the terms when they
are applied to a situation, because, as Burke points out,
there may be disagreement among men about the nature of an
act, the means by which it was carried out, its purpose, anc
so forth. To choose a r b itr a r ily , or in deference to one's
prejudices, one definition from among several, would be to
examine a rhetorical situation in a most unrhetorical way.
Such an approach would, indeed, eviscerate the Pentad,
reducing it to a handy piece of nomenclature--pegs on which
to hang one's preconceived notions.
Nevertheless, some kind of answers to the questions
generated by the Pentad will result in a complete statement
about the matter under examination--though it will probably
not be the final statement. In the present case, for
example, we will discover disagreement regarding the purpose
of liturgy, the nature of liturgical action, how it should
be performed, and so forth. The disagreement its e lf j u s t i
fies the existence of my treatment of the issue--not because
30
I intend to solve it , but because it is important enough to
merit further examination.
What is liturgy as an act? What goes on when liturgy is
engaged in? Why do people do it? How do they do it? Have
they always done it the same way? There are many possible
answers to these questions. Even if we narrow them by
limiting our source for answers to the Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy, we will not arrive at responses which would
satisfy everyone. W e might, however, develop a series of
responses which would further the discussion, and perhaps,
even bring apparently opposing positions to share a common
ground. More than that the rhetorician does not ask.
Let us say that liturgy is ritual behavior (act) which
is performed by people (agents) who believe it benefits therr
(purposive) in the late twentieth-century (scene). And the>
do it by means of signs, symbols, words, and gestures
(agency). Such statements might characterize liturgy as it
would be described by an outsider employing the Pentad. The
insider's view might be different: liturgy is worship (act)
which is celebrated by believers in a God (agent) who wishes
to make himself present among them (purpose) in every place
and time (scene) by means of divinely instituted signs
3 F
(agency). The differences are considerable, and so are the
consequences. And we can go further, viewing the liturgy
from within its e lf : a memorial s a c rific ia l banquet (act),
re-enacted by Christ through the priest (agent), to re
present his l i f e , death and resurrection (purpose), in
expressive language (scene), and the signs of bread and win€
( agency).
My use of the Pentad in this study will be two-fold.
F irst, as an organizationa1 schema, offering a series of
perspectives from which to view the litu rg ic a l experience.
Second, 'and more f r u i t f u l l y , as a heuristic, yielding a
method of investigation. For example, the liturgical actior
( act) will be examined in the light of the language of
liturgy, which is one of its major determinants ( scene) .
Thus the litu rg ica l a ctio n /litu rg ic a l language dialectic
(act/scene) will provide us with the kinds of questions most
useful in evaluating the potential efficacy of liturgy.
Form and Information in Liturgy
In Counter-Statement, 2 6 Burke sets forth a philosophy of
lite ra ry form which can be of service to this study of
liturgy, especially at those points where the structure and
language of the litu rg ical action are concerned. Burke
32
defines form as the arousing and f u l f i l l i n g of expectations,
and he goes on to delineate several kinds of form. Recal
ling Maldonado's definition of the f i r s t problem with the
new liturgy (multiplication of texts; a deluge of words),
i t is not d i f f i c u l t to see how Burke's discussion of form
can help define this problem further. "Hypertrophy of in-
2 7
formation," says Burke, "leads to atrophy of form." What
is true of form in lite r a ry works may be applied with profit
to litu rg ic a l texts, as well as to the whole range of l i t u r
gical action, sign, gesture, and symbol. The form of l i t u r
gy will be perceived when i t gratifies the expectations i t
creates. When i t fa ils to do this the reason may be due to
an overemphasis on the communication of information, which
leads directly, in Burke's system, to a de-emphasis of form.
Adapting Burke's view, we may suggest that litu rg ies which
strive for heavy catechesis and the relating of facts may
become prosaic, and lose their aesthetic appeal.
Liturgy and a Rhetoric of Assent
In addressing the second problem with liturgy as formu
lated by Maldonado (an over-emphasis on rational i n t e l l i
g i b i l i t y ) , the work of Wayne Booth is immediately relevant.
2 8
In Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent, he deals with
33
a controversy which is treated everywhere in the new
rhetoric: the s p lit between fact and value. Booth refers
2 9
to this phenomenon as "modernism." The controversy
arises (and propagates i t s e l f ) from the distinction be
tween "heart and mind," "logic and in tu itio n ," "thought and
feeling," "proof and commitment," or "knowledge and fa ith ,"
The distinction is false. Or, more to the point, the dis
tinction is misleading; i t can become a self-serving d i
chotomy by which either side can lambast the other. The
modernizing of litu rg ical ritual is right at the center of
the argument; i t has been interpreted by the "fact" defen
ders as absolutely necessary so that the Church can be an
30
effective influence on contemporary man. The "value" de
fenders have seen i t as a surrender to positivism and a
31
reduction of mystery to history.
I f the new liturgy stresses "rational i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , "
i t almost certainly does so in reaction to its pre-Vatican
I I forms, which were f e lt by many to be almost u n i n t e l l i
gible. And why was i t perceived so? By what c r it e r ia are
we to decide the degree of i n t e l 1i g i b i 1ity which is proper
to ritual activity? Booth's advocacy of assent and mutual
inquiry can guide us away from simplistic either-or solu-
34
tions by showing us that making sense of a morass of facts
is not possible without bringing sentiment to bear for
coherence. Assenting to both fact and value will help us
solve the problem of excessive emphas is on rat i ona1 i n t e l l i
g i b i l i t y in liturgy, and will also enable us to avoid the
other extreme: arcane angelism.
Liturgy, "Good Reasons," and "Presence"
Chaim Perelman in his treatise on argumentation, The
New Rhetoric, 32 in many ways--and in spite of the t i t l e - - i s
aiming at a new "dialectic" and all that dialectic in the
P latonic ' sense implies. Aristotle said that rhetoric was
the art of finding all the available means of p e r s u a s i o n , 3 3
emphasizing the decision-making faculty of the audience.
Pere 1 man de-emphasizes the persuading aspect of rhetoric in
two ways. F irs t, he says that to some degree all forms of
discourse are persuasive. This is also shown in other phi
losophers of good reasons who demonstrate how even the most
f la t s cientific prose has inherent persuasion--if only
because the knowledge it offers is good or true. Second,
and more importantly, persuasion for Perelman does not con
sist in one point of view trying to coerce an opposing point
of view. It consists, rather, in finding shared values be-
35
tween speaker and audience. The speaker does not impose nevi
values on his audience; he seeks to bring about action basec
on the values inherent between himself and his audience.
It is here that I find a revealing approach to the thirc
weakness in the new liturgy as formulated by Maldonado: an
overemphasis on its prophetic nature. The liturgy is not
primarily a means of conversion--that kind of conversion
which serves as a springboard to action. It is primarily
for the purpose of establishing and reinforcing the
worshipper's adherence to a set of values and beliefs.
Thus, it surely can, and must, dispose the participants to
whatever actions their values and beliefs embrace as good.
But it will have to retain its essential nature as gra
tuitous celebration, an end in i t s e l f , a "making present" of
the significant events of Christ's plan for salvation.
Perelman treats the examp 1e in discourse, inductive
reasoning which adheres to his notion of "presence."
Examples foreground an argument, specify i t , and bring it to
the audience's fu ll attention. "Presence" is achieved by
bringing things to an audience's attention from the past or
future as if they were before them now. In the same way,
analogy and metaphor also create "presence," for they may be
36
used to foreground that part of his presentation which a
speaker wishes to emphasize and thus establish its s i g n i f i
cance. Perelman's sense of non-formal argument leads him tc
value the quasi-logical over the logical, and ordinary
language over the formal syllogism. While a phrase like
"boys will be boys" could be a tautology in logic, in ordi
nary language and in various contexts it would have further
implications, connotations arising from the situation. A
1itu rg ic a 1 phrase like "Almighty and everlasting Father"
juxtaposes irreconcilable concepts, since fathers are
neither almighty norever 1asting except when the terms refer
to God, who is n't real 1y a father, except in a metaphorical
sense. And Jesus is "our brother" only in the context of
supra-rational belief.
Perelmanian argumentation is neither coercive (s tric t
persuasion) nor arbitrary (the label attached by logical
empiricists to any value system). Instead of looking at
what must be done, Perelman seeks a merger between audience
values and speaker values so that a decision can be made
about what ought to be done. Liturgy which is dominated by
a prophetic posture would seem to aim at a coercion to
action- - exercising a kind of persuasive force which, as I
37
shall attempt to demonstrate, goes counter to liturgy's pur
pose.
Edwin Black opts for a Perelmanian approach to argumen
tation as the most promising brand of rhetorical criticism,
defining it thus:
. . . i t is not only re la tiv e ly reasonable
discourse, soli citing an assent less intense
than, say, exhortation, and more intense than,
say, advice-giving, but it is also discourse
that occurs in a situat ion of controversy.34
And he concludes the chapter with words I could make my own
in this attempt to-make the orientation of my work clear:
Patently, in attempting to illu s tra te how the
rhetorical c r it ic may proceed, we have raised
more questions than we have answered. W e have
not evolved any system of rhetorical c r i t i
cism, but only, at best, an orientation to i t .
An orientation, together with taste and
intelligence, is all that the c r it ic n e e d s . 3 5
Liturgical Renewal in a Post-Structuralist Age
A principle which says that the mode of one's worship
determines what one believes ( 1 ex orandi, lex credendi)
raises significant hermeneutical questions and problems. It
makes a statement about how we know, or believe, what we
believe and about what determines belief. Ultimately it
implies that the meaning the worshipper attributes to the
mass will be determined by his experience of i t . The
38
litu rg y 's meaning, purpose, and significance, in other
words, will be perceived according to the quality of the
participant's personal experience.
The immediate consequence of such a view is that the
liturgy cannot be seen as a stat 1 c, unchang i ng ent i ty --s i mp 1
because participants in the liturgy are not static and
unchanging. The liturgy has changed because those who
celebrate it have changed. Thus, to what degree can we
speak of "the timeless, unchanging message or meaning of the
mass?" On the other hand there is the question of the
tagmemicists: how much can a thing change and s t i l l be
it s e l f ? 36 These considerations strike right at the heart
of contemporary controversy in litu rg ic al concerns, raising
important questions about ultimate meaning, objective truth
and subjective experience.
Maldonado's formulation of the tensions in the contem
porary litu rg ic a l climate seems accurate and timely in part
because he acknowledges both the importance of personal
experience and the o b jectivity of liturgy, thus attempting
to achieve a balance between total subjectivity and for-
malism. In this attempt he joins forces with lite r a ry c r i
tics who are striving for a similar kind of reconciliation
39
in the interpretation of texts. Parallels between the two
scenes are striking, and the continuing process of l i t u r g i
cal reform stands to gain much from an awareness of what is
being debated in the arena of lite ra ry criticism.
In his introduction to hermeneutics, Richard D. Palmer
makes this interesting statement: "the image of a scientist
taking an object apart to see how it is made has become the
prevailing model of the art of inte rp re ta tio n ."37 The
author was writing in 1969, and developments since then
modify his statement. Nevertheless, the observation is
s t i l l true, and relevant to much of what is happening in the
fie ld of litu rg ic a l studies as well. The liturgy is s t i l l
studied by its future leaders as an object, by and large,
rather than a process, experience, or work, integrated into
the larger experience of Christian l i f e . But a move away
from such rigid objectivity is now encouraged.38
The search for meaning is common to both liturgy and
lite r a tu re . But does meaning reside in the reader or the
text, in the worshipper or in the mass? Or in neither or
both? At the extreme and most recent end of the spectrum of
responses to such questions we find the post - structura1i s t s ,
who delight in not answering them--or, if read another way,
40
answering "yes" to all of them. In an attempt to find com
mon ground among five leaders in the s tru ctu ra lis t/p o s t
stru ctu ralist debates ( Levi- Strauss , Barthes, Foucault,
Lacan and Derrida), John Sturrock makes this summary
observat ion:
So there is a common ideology at work
here: of dissolution, of disbelief in the
ego. The self, in the traditional sense,
would appear to such as Foucault as a
"theological" notion, a false transcendence.
All these thinkers are against authority, and
against metaphysics. They do not wish to
transcend what they see, in pursuit of some
hidden, ultimate meaning which would "explain"
everything; they do not believe that every
thing can be explained. Nor do they hold with
teleological interpretations of history. They
are against the singular and for the plural,
preferring whole galaxies of meanings to
emerge from a limited set of phenomena to the
notion that it must hold one, unifying, domi
nant meaning. They believe, where meaning is
concerned, in "dissemination" (the word is
Derri da' s).
To revert for a moment to the linquistic
plane: what these five thinkers have very
in f lu e n tia lly done is to advance the claims of
the s ig n ifie r above those of the signified.
The s ig n ifie r is what we can be sure of, it is
material; the signified is an open question.
The same signifier is sure to have different
signifieds for two different people, occupying
a d iffe re n tly defined semantic space because
of the dissim ilarity of individual experience;
again, the same sign ifier will have different
signifieds for the same person at different
times, since the configuration of our semantic
space is never stable. Structuralism invites
us to delight in the p lu ra lity of meaning this
opens up, to reject the authoritarian or une-
41
quivocal interpretation of signs. Levi-
Strauss presents his own interpretations
of Amer-indian myths as possible interpreta
tions and leaves the way open for alternative
ones to follow; he is demonstrating a method,
not seeking to establish some final truth.'
Meanings may and should coexist, there is no
call for one to be exalted at the expense of
others. The more meaning there is in our
world the better: or so would say the sub
jects of this book.39
Structuralism as a controversial sc ie n tific approach to
all of human knowledge and experience impinges on this stud.y
in diverse ways. Insofar as it might discover underlying
and universal structure in, for example, man's ritual
expression cross-culturally, it could be of immense help in
>
establishing guidelines for litu rg ica l reform. And such is
the case with, for example, Victor Turner, who nevertheless
admits the necessity for transcending postulated structures
to arrive at a more nearly complete understanding of human
society, and ritual in particular.
The antistructural lim in ality provided in
the cores of ritual and aesthetic forms repre
sents the r e f le x iv it y of the social process,
wherein society becomes at once subject and
direct object; it represents also its subjunc
tive mood, where suppositions, desires,
hypotheses, p o s s ib ilitie s , and so forth, all
become legitimate. W e have been too prone to
think, in static terms, that cultural
superstructures are passive mirrors, mere
reflections of substructural productive modes
and relations or of the p o litic a l processes
that enforce the dominance of the productively
privileged. If we were as dialectical as we
42
claim to be, we would see that it is more a
matter of an existential bending back upon
ourselves: the same plural subject is the
active superstructure that assessed the
substructural and structural modalities that
we also are. Our concreteness, our substan-
t i a 1i t y is with us in our r e f le x iv it y , even in
the ludic play domain of certain of our limi-
nal moments: play is more serious than we,
the inheritors of Western Puritanism, have
thought.
The Ritual Process represents an attempt
to free my own thought, and I hope that of
others in my fie ld as well, from grooved
dependence on "structure" as the sole sociolo
gical dimension.40
Very different from Turner's "post-structura1ism" is
that of Jacques Derrida, who is perhaps the most radical and
controversial, and most d if f ic u lt to read, of those who have
taken structuralism beyond i t s e l f . Derrida's "deconstruc
tion" renders impossible the discovery of determinate
meaning or t r u t h . 41 in Derrida we find no hope for logos.
A text is deconstructed in order to discover any number of
possible interpretations which are of equal merit (or no
merit), since beyond the text it s e l f no significance is
attached to the interpreter's findings. Such blatant n ih i
lism would seem to leave us no choice but to fold our hands
in quiet resignation or to seek a kind of masochistic
aleasure in a hopeless but determined search after assorted
43
Chimeras. Philosophically and, according to the death-of-
God theologian Thomas J.J. A ltiz e r, theologically
as well, Derrida has had a great impact on modern thought.
No doubt this system of deconstructing texts will exert
influence on how we formulate (or do not formulate) and
interpret texts. Even now the questions he raises may keep
us from arriving too hastily at responses to questions about
determinate meaning.
Reader-response criticism is also a post - structura1ist
phenomenon, exercising the same skeptical outlook on objec
tive textual meaning that characterizes Derrida, albeit witF
less rigor and maniacal determi nation. Jane P. Tompkins
distinguishes appearance from r e a lity in the goals of
reader-centered criticism in these words:
In opening the door to the discussion of
personal experience in lite ra ry interpreta
tion, [reader-response] c ritic s appear to be
undoing the effort of New Criticism to hold
the line against science. The formalists had
labored to prove that their discipline was as
rigorous as any science by mounting a dis
course that was toughminded, logical, de
tached, and above a l l , objective. Reader-
c r it ic s , on the other hand, by inviting
readers to describe in detail their moment-by-
moment reactions to a text, appeared to be
letting back into lite r a ry criticism all the
idiosyncracy, emotionality, subjectivity, and
impressionism that had made the lite ra ry
enterprise vulnerable to attack by science and
that the New Critics had worked so hard to
eliminate from c ritic a l practice.
44
But in fact response-centered c ritic a l
theory is engaged in exactly the same power
struggle with science that played so large a
role in the formation of New Critical
doctrine. The difference is not one of goals
but tactics. Instead of trying to come up
with a defense of poetry that will satisfy
p o s itivis t demands for objectivity and v e ri
f i a b i l i t y , as the formalists did, reader-
oriented c ritic s at tack the foundations of
positivism it s e l f . Instead of protecting
lite ra tu re from unfavorable comparison with
science by maintaining that lite ra ry language
is uniquely constitutive of meaning whereas
s c ie n tific language merely reflects i t ,
response-centered theory, in its most recent
formulations, denies the existence of any
r e a lit y prior to language and claims for
poetic and scientific discourse exactly the
same relation to the real--namely, that of
socially constructed versions of i t . All
language, in this view, is constitutive of the
r e a lit y it purports to describe, whether it be
the language of mathematical equations or that
of a Petrarchan sonneteer. This assertion
deprives science of its privileged position in
relation to other forms of knowledge by
declaring that the objectivity on which
science bases its superiority is a f i c t i o n . 43
Tompkins concludes that the ultimate statement about
post-structuralist criticism is that it shares with the c r i
ticism of antiquity the recognition that language is power,
and therein lies its potential for greatness.44 With this
conclusion many rhetoricians would hastily agree, though
they may also wish to distinquish between language as power
and language as powerfu1. The distinction is not as diapha-
45
nous as i t may at f i r s t seem. Reader-centered criticism has
not, to my knowledge, demonstrated as yet that we are at the
me rc.y of 1anguage--only that we can be employed by i t as
well as employ i t , which is an important find, indeed.
Sim ilarly, there is no reason to deny, as y et, that language
whose purpose (expressed by the w riter) serves to invest i t
with some kind.of dependable meaning has more power than
language wherein determinate meaning is denied a hearing.
Post-structuralism has been charged with creating a
debacle in contemporary criticism--and rightly so i f texts
are not al lowed in any sense to be object. Surely we
descend into total rel ati vis!m_and . fmpressi oni sm i f no text
can be shared with a degree of communality--al1 commentary
becoming a series of monologues. In the study that follows,
I hope to give current lite r a ry criticism its due--certainly
to recognize its influence for good or i l l — but I also
reserve the right to speak in communal terms of what
litu rg ic a l texts and actions mean to "us" and "them." A
45
"long, drawn-out, enigmatic shrug of the shoulders" is
not my idea of liv e ly debate.
W e can draw parallels between the debates going on in
liturgy and lite r a tu r e , though the lines we draw should be
'ft
46
for the purpose of asking questions, not drawing conclu
sions. Very simply, we might say that as the New Criticism
saw lite ra tu re as an object, so the pre-Vatican II Church
saw liturgy as an object. But liturgy may now more e f fic a
ciously be viewed as experience in much the same way as
reader-response criticism views lite ra tu re as experience.
Certainly, in both fie ld s , we get the sense of a much more
"pastoral" approach, more humane, less s c ie n tis tic , and,
inevitably, more rhetorical.
Specification of meaning is s t i l l the aim of the c r i t i
cal act, as it is of the litu rg ic a l act. But a richer view
of both acts arises from our willingness to ask where that
neaning is to be found: in the text or in the reader, in
the liturgy or in the worshipper. If we decide on
"both-and" rather than " e ith e r-o r," our investigation will
srobably be most f r u i t f u l .
3urpose: The Touchstone of Liturgical Renewal
The elegance of Burke's Pentad consists, in part, in its
F le x ib ility . One could begin with any of the five terms and
examine the remaining four in the light of i t . And, in
Fact, that is what normally occurs when the Pentad is
Bmployed h e u r is tic a lly . In what follows, the term "purpose"
47
is established in Chapter One as the god-term of my examina
tion of the liturgy, and I begin by attempting to formulate
the purpose of liturgy. In the light of this formulation,
my consideration of liturgy and its components under the
headings of act, scene, agent, and agency will be illu m i
nated and guided in terms of how well litu rg y's purpose is
served. Such an arrangement is attended by risks as well as
advantages. The advantages are f a i r l y obvious: if we can
determine the purpose of an action, we can determine with a
greater degree of surety how to achieve i t . Very simply, if
I am clear about my motive, I have a better chance of
choosing the more effective means of carrying it out. If I
am confused about the "why" of my actions, I will surely be
confused about the "how." The risks involved in putting
Durpose f i r s t may not be so obvious, as Burke himself points
aut:
All told, of the five terms, Purpose has
become the one most susceptible of dissolu
tion. At least, so far as its formal recogni
tion is concerned. But once we know the logic
of its transformations, we can discern its
implicit survival; for the demands of drama-
tism being the demands of human nature i t s e l f ,
it is hard for man, by merely taking thought,
to subtract the dramatist cubits from his sta
ture. Implicit in the concepts of act and
agent there is the concept of purpose. It is
likewise implicit in agency, since tools and
methods are for a purpose.46
48
It will be necessary to avoid making e x p lic it what is
only im p lic it, lest the result be advocacy in advance of, or
in spite of, examination. Nevertheless, a working d e fin i
tion of litu rg y 's purpose, gleaned from the Constitution on
the Sacred Liturgy, will provide focus and direction to all
that f o 1 lows.
49
Chapter One: The Purpose and Meaning of Liturgy
The secularization of the l i t u r g y :has, according to
Maldonado, concealed an essential part of its nature as gra
tuitous celebration and has overemphasized the prophetic
element to the point where liturgy is experienced as a means
to a practical end. I t becomes cl ear immediately that any
discussion of purpose in the light of the problem as fo r
mulated w ill focus on what liturgy's purpose is n o t, as well
as on what litu rg y's purpose i_s. Nevertheless, the
overriding concern here is not so much to isolate and c r i t i
cize current problems as i t is to formulate a working pur
pose of liturgy in the light of the guidelines of reform as
promulgated by the Church. Secularization is not always a
negative concept, and the notable gains of the litu rg ic a l
reform in terms of bringing the Church up to date must be
acknowledged at the outset. Pope John XXIII adopted the
word aggi ornamento when he convened the Second Vatican
Council, a word which can best be translated "bringing up to
50
date." The success of the Council's renewal program with
regard to liturgy is seen everywhere; to insure continued
success and further gains, however, it is necessary to note
when agg i ornamento goes awry and to hark back to the spirit
of the reformers. And it seems clear that some .implemen
tation of the renewal program has resulted in a confusion
with regard to litu rg y's purpose--a confusion seen in the
tendency toward secularization in the negative sense.
Let us begin by reviewing the purpose of liturgy as it
is found in the Constitut ion on the Sacred Liturgy. W e do
not find a tersely formulated definition of purpose as such,
but the entire document makes clear what the aim of liturgy
is, and several passages are directly concerned with
defining purpose:
For the liturgy, "through which the work
of our redemption is accomplished," most of
all in the divine sacrifice of the eucharist,
is the outstanding means whereby the fa ith fu l
may express in their lives, and manifest to
others, the mystery of Christ and the real
nature of the Church. (Art. 2)
While the liturgy daily builds up those who
are within into a holy temple of the Lord,
into a dwelling place for God in the S p irit,
to the mature measure of the fullness of
Christ, at the same time it marvelously
strengthens their power to preach Christ, and
thus shows forth the Church to those who are
outside as a sign lifte d up among the nations
under which the scattered children of God may
be gathered together until there is one sheep-
fold and one shepherd. ( A r t . 3)
51
[C h rist's ] purpose also was that they might
accomplish the work of salvation which they
had proclaimed, by means of sacrifice and
sacraments, around which the entire litu rg ic al
l i f e revolves. (Art 6, and the entire a rtic le
dwel1s on purpose.)
In like manner, as often as they eat the
supper of the Lord they proclaim the death of
the Lord until he comes. (Art. 6)
To accomplish so great a work, Christ is
always present in his Church, especially in
her litu rg ic a l celebrations. He is present in
the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the
person of his minister, "the same now
offering, through the ministry of priests, who
formerly offered himself on the cross," but
especially under the eucharistic species. By
his power he is present in the sacraments, so
that when a man baptizes it is really Christ
himself who baptizes. He is present in his
word, since it is he himself who speaks when
the holy scriptures are read in the Church.
He is present, la s tly , when the Church prays
and sings, for he promised: "Where two or
three are gathered in my name, there am I in
the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20). (Art. 7)
[T]he liturgy is the summit towards which
the a c tiv ity of the Church is directed; at the
same time it is the fount from which all her
power flows. For the aim and object of
apostolic works is that all who are made sons
of God by faith and baptism should come
together to praise God in the midst of his
Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and eat
the Lord's supper. (Art. 10)
From the litu rg y, therefore, and especially
from the eucharist, as from a fount, grace is
poured forth upon us; and the sanctification
of men in Christ and the glo rific a tio n of God,
to which all other a c tiv itie s of the Church
are directed as towards their end, is achieved
in the most efficacious possible way. (Art. 10)
52
I have quoted some of the most salient passages which
deal more specifically with the purpose of liturgy. Draw
ing from these, and from the s p ir it of the entire Constitu
tion, i t is not d i f f ic u l t to formulate a working definition
of litu rg y's purpose for the discussion which follows. The
purpose of liturgy is to make present to the assembled con
gregation the l i f e , death, and resurrection of Christ in
such a way that they are disposed to live out in their
daily lives the mysteries they witness, and in which they
*
parti ci pate. As a sacrament, liturgy effects what i t sig
n ifie s ; that is , i t re-presents the s a c rific ia l action of
Christ and extends i t throughout all times, for the build
ing up of a community of believers who are sanctified by
their very re-enactment of th e ir salvation and become signs
of the saving work of Christ, continuing in the present.
That definition is heavily theological. I t is also emi
nently rhetorical I f we are w illin g to see rhetoric as: more
than a simple persuading to action. Among those rh e to ri
cians we designate as "new," Chaim Perelman emerges as one
who has formulated rhetoric's function in a way which will
prove helpful in our consideration of litu rg y's purpose.
His notion of "presence" is particularly relevant to
53
litu rg ic a l discourse, and not only that part of litu rg ical
discourse called the "sermon" or "homily," but the language
which appears in litu rg ic a l formularies as well. Notice in
our working definition of liturgy above how the notion of
presence is reiterated. It is a constant in litu rg ical
theology that the rites not only recall or repeat the
central events in Christ's life - -t h e y actually re-present
them, make them present, effect what they signify. The
Constitution has adopted in its expression of this notion
the controversial theology of Odo Case!, a Benedictine
litu rg ic a l theologian who died in 1948. It may be sum
marized very b rie fly in Casel's well-known definition:
The mystery is a sacred ritu a l action in which
a saving deed is made present through the
r i t e ; the congregation, by performing the
r i t e , takes part in the saving act, and
thereby wins salvation.47
Commenting on Casel's idea of presence in sacramental
actions, Burkhard Neunheuser says:
Contemporary theology has gone further and
correctly insisted that the r e a lit y in
question here is that of an anamnesis or
memor i a (commemoration). The la t t e r , as the
Council of Trent reminds us, is not a "mere
remembering" that goes on solely in the mind
of the individual. . . . It is rather a mem
orial in which the remembered r e a lity becomes
"present" in such a way that the fa ith fu l
can participate in it and thus gain salvation.
This "making present" does not mean, however,
that a historical event which is over and done
54
with occurs again in time! There is thus no
derogation from Christ's historical act of
redemption, that is, from his sacrifice that
was offered ephapax, once and for a l l . Yet
the la tte r is indeed "made actual" in this
objectively real memorial.48
I am not juxtaposing theology and rhetoric here to imply
that the notion of presence is the same in both, though the
identical word employed by Perelman and Casel is more than a
happy coincidence. The point is that rhetoric's notion of
presence can be of significant aid to liturgy in f u l f i l l i n g
its purpose of "making present." To demonstrate this point,
we can now turn to an examination of the term as Perelman
uses i t .
Presence acts directly on our se n s ib ility .
As Piaget shows, it is a psychological datum
operative already at the level of perception:
when two things are set side by side, say a
fixed standard and things of variable dimen
sions with which it is compared, the things on
which the eye dwells, that which is best or
most often seen, is, by that very circum
stance, overestimated. The thing that is
present to the consciousness assumes thus an
importance that the theory and practice of
argumentation must take into consideration.
It is not enough indeed that a thing should
exist for a person to feel its presence. . . .
Accordingly one of the preoccupations of a
speaker is to make present, by verbal magic
alone, what is actually absent but what he
considers important to his argument or, by
making them more present, to enhance the value
of some of the elements of which one has
actually been made conscious.49
55
There is no d i f f ic u l t y in extending Perelman's speaker-
audience relationship so that it embraces the liturgy-
congregation re 1 ationship--which would also enable us to
apply his theory of presence to the non-verbal elements of
litu rg ic a l r it u a l . Such an extension enables us further to
formulate the purpose of liturgy very simply in terms of
"making present" its central message: the redemptive acts
of Christ continue through time and are made present
through ritu a l enactment. It is not so simple, however, to
determine how the liturgy accomplishes this in a way which
is experienced by the participants as precisely that: a
re-presentation. As I shall argue la te r, the means by which
liturgy will f u l f i l l its purpose of "making present" will
not be found in a q u asi-literal re-doing of what Christ did.
It will be found in the components of r it u a l: symbol,
Tietaphor, gesture, and all those other means by which man
attempts to transcend the l i t e r a l . The thesis here is that
the purpose of liturgy is not only misunderstood when we see
it as instruction or conversion or immediate inducement to
a c tio n --it may be actually thwarted by such a vision, or so
altered that ritu a l a c tiv ity becomes l i t t l e more than propa
ganda.
56
The implication that the reformed liturgy has d if f ic u lty
achieving its purpose is based on the observation that con
temporary liturgy has become secularized, and has, there
fore, taken on a highly prophetic tone. An exami nation of
the secularization process will make it easier to see why
the reformed liturgy sometimes does not lend it s e l f to the
purpose of "making present" the redemptive process, but
rather takes on the character of catechesis and propaganda.
Maldonado offers the following as a kind of summary of
the theory upon which the secularization process is built:
The theses on the secular character of the
Christian liturgy can be summed up as follows:
the litu rg ic a l celebration must be situated in
the secular context that is proper to man, not
in "the other world," not constituting "the
other world," a separate world, but in the
only real world, in the saecu1 urn, that is to
say, in the midst of the materia 1 - tempora1
(history), which is at the same time the only
"means" through which both the transtemporal
and, if you want, the other-wor1d1y approach
us. This is the thesis of the nonduality,
n o n -e x tr a te r rito r ia lity of fa ith , of worship,
e tc .
The acceptance of such a thesis can be
called secularization by way of syn-tax or
syn-thes i s (the way that brings together and
arranges in pairs the material and the s p i r i
tu al, the profane and the sacred, the worldly
and the religious, the temporal and the fa ith ,
the history of man and the eternity of God).
On the other hand, we can speak of secu
la riza tio n , as in former times, by way of
diastasis, i . e . , in terms of an opposition that
57
is neither mutually exclusive nor contradic
tory. This method continues to be legitimate
and timely, i . e . , the method which supports a
separation of the ecclesial from the c i v i l ,
that is to say, the emancipation and autonomy
of the temporal with regard to any control on
the part of the Church.50
Insofar as the secularization of liturgy has
demonstrated how integral a part of man's experience it is,
the process has been healthy and sane. In effect, we can
see in such a process a f u lle r realization of the fundamen
tal doctrine of the Incarnation, the union of the godhead
with humanity. And that, of course, is the central mystery
which liturgy celebrates. But insofar as the secularization
process has manifested its e lf in litu rg ic a l reform which is
fundamentally reductionist, we can detect, in the results, a
kind of liturgy which is pragmatic, r a t io n a lis tic , and
perhaps even ridiculous if one is w illing to see the contra-
dition inherent in a situation where apparently reasonable
discourse is conducted amid very impractical environments
and objects. For example, the in tu itiv e onlooker senses
immediately that something is awry when he hears a rehash of
the morning's newscast from a person swathed in mass vest-
nents. Form and function are clearly at odds; implied pur-
aose is not being expressed.
58
One of the clearest indications of the secularization
process at work in liturgy is the introduction of texts frorr
contemporary writers. It is not so common today, but not
long ago one would not be surprised to hear the assigned
texts from the Bible replaced by or supplemented with selec
tions from such authors as Bonhoeffer, Saint-Exupery, or
Teilhard de Chardin. These writers added to a litu rg ica l
celebration that note of modernity and relevance which some
f e lt to be necessary; otherwise liturgy might seem to be
irrelevant and outmoded, having l i t t l e to do with "real"
l i f e . However, it can be seen that such foregrounding of
texts only very indirectly related to the mass will distract
the congregation away from the central message. Such non-
scriptural authors surely can be read with benefit, even in
a para 1itu rg ic a 1 setting. But in the context of the mass
they tend to thwart purpose by distracting the congregation
from what the mass is supposed to "make present." This
example is a helpful one for two reasons: it demonstrates
the secularization process at a destructive level, and it
shows how the not ion of presence is violated. Whatever is
introduced into the liturgy of the mass in such a way as to
detract from its unchanging message will endanger the
59
fu lfillm e n t of its purpose, whether that be a tone of ordi
nariness or excessive fa m ilia rity on the part of the
celebrant, or contemporary issues which imply that the
litu rg y is a sounding board for the world's i l l s and a
springboard to action. Many of the so-called "abuses" in
litu rg y are judged so in the light of litu rg y 's sole purpose
of making present the mystery of Christ's saving deeds.
In further delineating his notion of presence, Perelman
observes that the argumentation process involves not only
the selection of elements to be used in creating presence,
but also the technique by which they are presented, thereby
naking a distinction between content and form, a distinction
vhich is crucial for any consideration of liturgy. It is
not only what is said and done in litu rg ic a l r i t u a l , but how
it is said and done that will determine its efficacy. This
seems obvious, of course, but one can see the principle
/iolated frequently in celebrations which are done hastily
Dr in a slovenly semi-automatic s p ir it . There is no e v i
dence of greater carelessness in celebrations of the new
liturgy than in the old, of course, but perhaps the new
liturgy demands greater care simply because it is more
transparent and more immediate by its very nature. At the
60
same time it makes excessive informality a greater l i a b i
l i t y .
A celebrant who is alert to litu rg y 's purpose of "making
present" the redemptive acts of Christ will not allow con
tent or technique to reduce the quality of presence. At a
higher level, he will not allow the secularization process
to introduce into liturgy factors or issues which will
attract attention away from its central message and purpose.
Recall at this point that we are dealing with the f i f t h
term in the Burkean Pentad. When we deal with purpose we
raise the question 1 1 Why is it done?" Keeping in mind the
purpose of liturgy as "making present" the l i f e , death, and
resurrection of Christ (and the s a lv ific effect of those
deeds), the notion of presence in Perelman's theory of argu
mentation, and Maldonado's suggestion that secularization
has concealed a part of the litu rg y as gratuitous celebra
tion (an end in i t s e l f ) , we can move through the terms of
the Pentad and arrive at a f u lle r understanding of them in
the light of purpose. At the same time, we will find
suggestions with regard to remedies for some of the i l l s in
litu rg ic a l reform as it has been implemented. Finally, the
three major problems (verbalism, rationalism, and
61
secularism) will reveal themselves as the result of a depar
ture from litu rg y's purpose.
Purpose and the Pentadic Ratios
In our consideration of the mass as ritu al action,
Burke's theory of form will demonstrate that the nature of
ritu a l action is bound up with repetition, p re d ic ta b ility ,
and a kind of syllogistic progression which lends liturgy
its own kind of logic. The prime concern is to insist upon
the liturgy as form rather than a channel of information.
The indirect proportion between form and information makes
clear how destructive excessive emphasis on referential or
conative language can be where ritual action is concerned.
The purpose of the mass as reflected in the Church's
teaching supports the notion of the mass as ritual action--
unchanging in its essence because it is always a re
enactment of the "s a c rific ial banquet." To alter the form
Df the mass (either by overemphasis on one aspect or by a
spontaneous change in the structure) can draw attention away
From its t o t a l i t y and compromise to some degree the
■presence" which it is litu rg y's purpose to maintain.
It is in fu ll awareness of such potential danger that
;he Church has always forbade individual tampering with the
62
order of the mass. When such stern control is dismissed as
loman paternalism, and liberties are taken on the local
level, there is a risk of altering the effect of the mass
and, consequently, frustrating its message and purpose. The
act/purpose dialectic makes clearer, f in a ll y , that the mass
is primarily action, not words. The ritu a l action its e lf
uakes present the original saving action of Christ. As
renewal continues, the specifically ritu a l nature of the
nass will be more strongly asserted in the light of
1i turgy1s purpose .
I t would, of course, be simplistic and unfair simply to
crand all experimentation in an age of renewal as irrespon
sible or foolhardy. When we speak of "abuse" in this con
text, it does not necessarily carry an indictment against
those who are in careful and honest pursuit of more e f fic a
cious liturgy. It is surely necessary for the church to
Dass through a time of confusion following such sweeping
changes in the primary means through which its function and
nission in the world is expressed. The "verbalism" iden
tifie d as a weakness in the new liturgy is, in part, a
natural result of moving from an a ll-L a tin liturgy to an
i 11-vernacu1ar litu rg y, from a rather narrow use of scrip
63
ture to a much broader use, and from only slight par
ticip atio n of the fa ith fu l to fu ll and constant involvement.
Indeed, without the excesses and weaknesses, it would be
d i f f i c u l t to arrive at a clearer formulation of those
features which will provide balance.
Similarly, whatever weaknesses appear in litu rg ic al
language today are, when recognized, simply an impetus
toward clearer realization of how litu rg ica l language must
be improved in order to meet litu rg y 's purpose. In a con
sideration of language as the "scenic background" for
litu rg ic a l action, we have an approach which should enable
us to develop new texts and more effective translations of
Latin texts which move beyond simple accuracy and aim at
more aesthetic concerns. In dealing with language of
liturgy as scene--"fit container for the action it
contains"--the purpose/scene ratio becomes quite revealing,
since the language of liturgy carries much of the weight in
creating "presence." Didacticism in litu rg ic a l language is
seen as very much at variance with litu rg y 's purpose; but it
must also be seen as a rather predictable resuit of change,
a stage which we might have foreseen in the renewal process.
It is only now, perhaps, that we can look back on almost
twenty years of use and determine what further development
must take place.
In dealing with the term "agent," we see that the
liturgy is something like the Church's face, the appearance
or presence of the Church in its most commonly experienced
form. The renewal of the liturgy throughout the Church's
long history has always been an attempt to address man in
his current milieu, to embrace his situation at any given
time and s t i l l speak the unchanging message of redemption
and grace. And I have documented some of the d if f ic u ltie s
which ensued when changes where made in the liturgy of the
mass throughout history. The ultimate concern was a balance
between relevance and unchanging gospel, between timeless
truth and effective contemporary expression of i t . Often,
such balance was a long time in coming, and we should not
expect the situation to be different in our own age. The
balance is not always apparent, and in adapting liturgy to a
post-nineteenth century logical po s itiv ist culture, the
Church has suffered from a tendency on the part of some to
reduce the ritual act to an understandable, explainable phe
nomenon in s cie n tific terms. Clifford Geertz formulates
clearly a distinction between the perspective of religion
65
and the perspective of science--a distinction which does not
set them at war but merely maintains differences.
The religious perspective differs from the
common-sensica1 in that, as already pointed
out, it moves beyond the r e a litie s of everyday
l i f e to wider ones which correct and complete
them, and its defining concern is not action
upon those wider r e a litie s but acceptance of
them, faith in them. It differs from the
s c ie n tific perspective in that it questions
the r e a lit ie s of everyday li f e not out of an
in s titu tio nalized scepticism whi ch dissolves
the world's givenness into a swirl of probabi
l i s t i c hypotheses, but in terms of what it
takes to be wider, nonhypothetical truths.
Rather than detachment, its watchword is
commitment; rather than analysis, encounter.
And it differs from art in that instead of
effecting a disengagement from the whole
question of fa c tu a lity , deliberately manufac
turing an air of semblance and illu s io n , it
deepens the concern with fact and seeks to
create an aura of utter actu ality. It is this
sense of the "really real" upon which the
religious perspective rests and which the sym
bolic a c tiv itie s of religion as a cultural
system are devoted to producing, intensifying,
and, so far as possible, rendering inviolable
by the discordant revelations of secular
experience. It is, again, the imbuing of a
certain specific complex of symbols--of the
metaphysic they formulate and the style of
l i f e they recommend--with a persuasive
authority which, from an analytic point of
view, is the essence of religious action.
Our considerations regarding purpose remind us that we
are dealing with mystery and grace, not rational i n t e l l i g i
b i l i t y . While we could not call the mass nonsense, we must
66
continue to regard it as non-rational (or supra-rationa1),
for its message and its purpose cannot be in te lle c tu a lly
mastered. It is not useful in any pragmatic way and its
reason for being cannot be formulated in purely rational
terms. The temptation to do so may be very strong, indeed,
and even quite understandable in a s c ie n tific and tech
nological age. But it is then that litu rg y 's purpose will
be re-formulated and remind us that the mass is a gratuitous
re-enactment which attempts to make present a supernatural
r e a li t y . The ratio between purpose and agent insures the
ultimate gratuity of ritu a l worship and enables the liturgy
to adopt a stance which is effective in every time and
p1 ace.
The agency/purpose ratio may well be the most imme
diately f r u i t f u l when we seek the fu lfillm e n t of purpose
through the ways and means of litu rg y. W e will see in con
siderations of agency that litu rg y 's means of expression are
highly metaphoric, symbolic, and, if you w i l l , a r t i s t i c .
In this regard, too, Geertz expresses the matter clearly:
. . . it is in r it u a l - - t h a t is, consecrated
behavior--that this conviction that religious
conceptions are veridical and that religious
directives are sound is somehow generated. It
is in some sort of ceremonial form--even if
that form be hardly more than the recitation
of a myth, the consu1atation of an oracle, or
the decoration of a grave--that the moods and
67
motivations which sacred symbols induce in men
and the general conceptions of the order of
existence which they formulate for men meet
and reinforce one another. In a r it u a l , the
worid as lived and the wo rid as imagined,
fused under the agency of a single set of sym
bolic forms, turn out to be the same world. .
. . Whatever role divine intervention may or
may not play in the creation of faith--and it
is not the business of the scientist to pro
nounce upon such matter one way or the other--
it is, primarily at least, out of the context
of concrete acts of religious observance that
religious conviction emerges on the human
plane.52
The secularization influences exerted on the post-
conciliar liturgy have taken their to ll in terms of an
insistence upon the relevance (in a pragmatic sense) of
liturgy and a diminution of the idea of lim in a lity . The
tension created is understandable in view of the pre-
conciliar conviction on the part of many that liturgy had
completely lost contact with the real world. Agg i ornamento
had as its objective a modernization of the ways and means
of liturgy so that through a more i n t e l l i g i b l e ritu al modern
man could express his belief and celebrate his faith with
greater understanding and fervor. Implementation of the
reforms often resulted in a liturgy with a strong prophetic
character, which implies, as Maldonado observes, three
things:
68
(1) an announcing of the presence of God and
of Christ in current events; (2) a denouncing
of the concrete situations of sin; (3) an
exhortation directed toward the Christian and
the community calling them to a commitment in
the struggle to solve such problems.53
Problem solving may be much easier to square off against
than myth and r it u a l. The excitement following the re a liz a
tion that liturgy could be a real force in the world was
i r r e s i s t i b 1e , and the mode of celebration became, gradually,
predominantly prophetic. Distinctions between the sacred
and profane became less dramatic--even disappearing a lto
gether in some litu rg ie s . Once again, we must not judge
these excesses unsympathetically, for they are predictable
reactions to a feeling that the Church was outmoded in her
worship. But it is time now to reassert (as many are doing)
the value of ritu a l processes for their own sake--as an
important part of homo religiosus. The point here is that
when the purpose of the liturgy is clearly seen, the more
efficacious means toward achieving that purpose will be
adopted. The corrective measure from the point of view of
purpose will begin with celebrations which strive to make
present to the assembled worshippers, by means of a complex
of symbols, the redemptive actions of God, offered for their
acceptance and response.
69
"Presence" as Regulator in Ritual Settings
I suggest throughout this study that the art of rhe
to ric , which is interd iscip1inary by nature in its concern
with human communication, has much to offer. Perelman's
notion of "presence" is one such example.
What an audience accepts forms a body of
opinion, convictions, and commitments that is
both vast and indeterminate. From this body
the orator must select certain elements on
which he focuses attention by endowing them,
as it were, with a "presence." This does not
mean that the elements le ft out are entirely
ignored, but they are pushed into the back
ground. Such a choice im p lic itly sets a
value on some aspects of r e a lit y rather than
others. . . .
Things present, things near to us in space
and time, act directly on our s e n s ib ility .
The orator's endeavors often consist, however,
in bringing to mind things that are not imme
diately present. Bacon was well aware of this
function of eloquence:
The affection beholdeth merely the
present; reason beholdeth the future and
sum of time. And therefore the present
f i l l i n g the imagination more, reason is
commonly vanquished; but after that force
of eloquence and persuasion hath made
things future and remote appear as pre
sent, then upon the revolt of the imagina
tion reason prevaileth.
To make "things future and remote appear
as present," that is, to create presence,
calls for special efforts of present a tio n .54
The effective leader in the litu rg ic a l situation may
p ro fit a great deal from this notion. Notice, of course,
70
that it does not require the total elimination of ideas or
elements which are immediately relevant. Foregrounding
is sufficient for the desired element to be perceived as
more immediate and more important.
We can extend the usefulness of Perelman's "presence"
beyond the leader of the litu rg ic a l assembly with equally
good effect. "Things present, things near to us in space
and time, act d ire ctly on our s e n s ib ility ." Such a state
ment has implications for the entire milieu of liturgy and
the way in which it is celebrated. The space in which the
mass is celebrated plays an important role in creating pre
sence, as does the sacred art and furnishings in that space,
as does the music which accompanies the ritu a l action, and,
perhaps most of a l l , as does the bodily conduct of the
ministers and people who enact the litu rg y . All must be
evaluated in terms of their perceived aim of "making
present" the mystery of fa ith . The purpose of liturgy,
clearly defined, will bring us to a wholistic approach--a
Gestalt view--in which every element is as much in harmony
with litu rg y 's aim as possible.
In conclusion, we may assume that the secularization of
the liturgy has sometimes deprived it of the a b i li t y to
7T
foreground its central message and purpose. Likewise, an
excessive didactic sp irit (in which form is sacrificed for
information) has clouded the specific goals of liturgy. And
a concomitant emphasis on rational i n t e l 1i g i b l i t y has f r e
quently resulted in a loss of the aesthetic dimension. One
way to reverse such losses is to recall and restate the pur
pose of liturgy as creating presence by dwelling on the very
actions which inspired it: the l i f e , death, and redeeming
resurrection of the Lord, which are once again made present
in the s a c rific ia l banquet instituted by him.
72
Chapter Two: Liturgy as Ritual Action
The mass can be defined in a number of formulae: "a
ritu a l proclamation of salvation," or "a re-presentation of
what Christ did," or "a symbolic re-enactment of the l i f e ,
death, and resurrection of Christ," or, to use the words of
the Church in its attempt to define the mass:
Hence the Mass, the Lord's Supper, is at the
same time and inseparably:
a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the
cross is perpetuated; a memorial of the death
and resurrection of the Lord, who said "do
this in memory of me" (Lk 22:19);
a sacred banquet in which, through the com
munion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the
People of God share the benefits of the
Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant
which God has made with man o.nce and for all
through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and
hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatolo-
gical banquet in the kingdom of the Father,
proclaiming the Lord's death " t i l l his
coming. "55
D is t illin g these definitions to the simplest expression
possible, we might define the mass as "a s a c rific ia l
73
memorial banquet," or "a meal which commemorates and per
petuates a sa crifice." Is it important to note that the
d efinition can be inverted, as in "a sacrifice which com
memorates and perpetuates a meal?" It would seem so since
this brings us to an awareness of one of the most- stubborn
controversies: is the mass primarily a banquet or primarily
a sacrifice? Or is it equally both? The Church's d e f i n i
tion given above would seem to indicate that the mass is
equally sacrifice and banquet (and, in fact, the mass is
commonly referred to as a " s a c rific ia l banquet").
What must b-e kept in mind most clearly--and what seems
to be forgotten frequent1y --is that the mass is a "memorial"
act. That is, it is a ritual re-enactment of the prototypi
cal Last Supper as well as the crucifixion and resurrection.
Even the most passing acquaintance with studies done in the
area of ritu a l will reveal a plethora of opinions and
assert ions.56 At this point, however, it is sufficient to
maintain that the mass is a ritual act, repeated over and
over again. On this one point, at least, the scholarship
concerned with ritu a l is in agreement: ritu a l is essen
t i a l l y bound up with habit and immutability. The point here
is that the ritual of the mass communicates the memorial act
74
of Christ's sacrifice (at the meal, through bread and wine,
and on the cross, through death and resurrection) . To say
this is simply to reassert that the Church's definition of
the mass is a "given" in this discussion. Variations from
this definition would take us beyond the very rhetorical
situation to which this study is confined, since we are con
cerned here with a match between defined belief (dogma) and
the expression of that b e lie f.
As we have seen, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
states that the unchanging content of the mass consists of a
re-presentation of the significant events in the l i f e of
Christ. Consequently, the form of the mass which most e f f i
caciously re-stated this central content would be the most
rh e to ric a lly e ffe c tiv e --th a t is, would achieve the goal of
litu rg y , which is to reaffirm belief and the assent to the
body of revealed truth which the liturgy represents.
Viewing things from a broader perspective, it should be
clear that the liturgy of the Church will be, in effect, a
succinct definition of the Church herself. That is, one
should be able to define the Church by observing her liturgy
and drawing from it the Church's raison-d'etre. From this
it follows that a change in the Church's view of her purpose
75
in the world will result in noticeable changes in the pri-
nary way in which her purpose is manifested externa11y--in
the litu rg y. From the opposite point of view, any s i g n i f i
cant change in the liturgy is going to effect some measure
of change in the way the Church is seen as a force in the
world. It is clear that the Church w ill be experienced and
defined in great part in terms of the effect the liturgy has
on those who witness it--whether as participants or outside
observers.
The dynamic ratio between content and form must be kept
clearly in mind when implementing the changes called for by
the Council documents which deal with the liturgy, lest a
separation occur (as it sometimes does) between the revealed
truth which the liturgy represents and the forms it assumes
in doing so. Heavily didactic liturgy, rites which empha
size "Christian duty," and litu rg ic a l actions which are d i f
f ic u lt to distinguish from fraternal get-togethers would
seem to introduce such a contradictory schism between con
tent and form. The principle 1 ex orandi, lex credendi
(mode of worship = mode of b elief) is demonstrated once
again.
Before proceeding further, and by way of preparation for
what lies ahead, a brief outline of the ritual elements
76
which constitute the litu rg ic a l action of the mass w ill be
helpful. In the f i r s t place i t w ill provide the reader with
the nomenclature employed throughout the rest of this study.
Second, i t w ill show how the elements are arranged and the
relationships among them which are presumed in discussions
such as this one. Finally, i t w ill prepare for the dicus-
sion of "form" which immediately follows the outline, and
which w ill have bearing on la te r chapters. The new Ordo
Mi ss ae (Order of the Mass) has been obligatory since 1969.
I t can be witnessed at any celebration of the new liturgy
and found in any missal printed since Vatican I I . Variable
elements have been indented.
THE ORDER OF THE MASS
INTRODUCTORY RITES
Entrance Procession
Entrance Song
Veneration of the Altar
Sign of the Cross
Greeti ng
Int roducti on
Penitential Rite
Sunday Renewal of Baptism
"Lord Have Mercy"
"Glory to God"
Opening Prayer or Collect
LITURGY OF THE WORD
First Reading
77
Psalm Response
Second Reading
Gospel Acclamation
A lleluia
Sequence
Gospel
Homily
Profession of Faith
General Intercessions
LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST
A. Preparation of the Gifts
Preparation of the Altar
Presentation of the Gifts
Offertory Song
Prayers at the Preparation of the Gifts
Mixing of Water and Wine
"Lord God, W e Ask .You"
Incensat i on
Washing of the Hands
Prayer over the Gifts and its Invitation
B. Eucharistic Prayer
P reface
"Holy, Holy, Holy Lord"
E p i c 1 e s i s
I E
Narrative of the Institution
Memorial Acclamation
Anamnes i s
Offer i ng
Int ercessions
Final Doxology
C. Communion Rite
Lord‘ s Prayer
Rite of Peace
Breaking of Bread
Commi ng1i ng
"Lamb of God"
Private Preparation of Priest and People
Invitation to Communion
Distribution of the Eucharist
Communion Song
Purification of the Vessels
Silent Prayer/Song of Praise
Prayer after Communion
CONCLUDING RITE
Announcement s
Greeting and Blessing
D i s m i s s a 1
79
Veneration of the Altar
Recess i onal
With very few modifications this outline of the order of
the mass is the one which is followed in parish churches
throughout the worid for Saturday evening and Sunday
celebrations. Weekday masses are somewhat simpler in the
Introductory Rites and the Liturgy of the Word. The degree
of solemnity can vary widely--from a weekday or early Sunday
morning mass at which there is no singing at a l l , to a prin
cipal Sunday celebration in which there might be congrega
tional singing, choral music, and other embellishments such
as incense, extra ministers (servers, lectors, ministers of
communion), and so forth. Regardless of these variations,
however, the basic structure of the mass remains the same.
A simple listin g of the structural elements of a ritual
does l i t t l e , of course, to aid us in judging the effect it
may have on its audiences. It does, however, say something
about an audience's expectations--presuming that the ritual
is known to be quite rig id ly enforced by the highest
authority of the Church in the pattern and sequence of
actions as given above. No one may depart from this
structure; nothing can be added or deleted, apart from those
m
elements which are legislated as variable (Art. 22, §3).
This is an important point, for it asserts the essentially
ritual nature of the mass. Consequently, the participants
have certain expectations regarding the sequence of actions,
and at least a minimal understanding of why the elements are
ordered as they are.
Much more important, however, in judging the effect of
litu rg ic a l action, is the consideration of the way in which
the several actions are carried out. With these two impor
tant factors in mind (the structure and the mode of
implementation), we can now turn to a consideration of
"form"--based on Kenneth Burke's treatment of form in
Counter-Statement. There is no better introduction to
Burke's theory of form, for our present purpose, than his
own, which opens the chapter "Lexicon Rhetoricae."
The present essay attempts to define the
principles underlying the appeal of l i t e r a
ture. By lite ra tu re we mean written or spoken
words. Primarily we are concerned with
lite ra tu re as art, that is, lite ra tu re
designed for the express purpose of arousing
emotions. But sometimes lite ra tu re so
designed fa ils to arouse emotions- - and words
said purely by way of explanation may have an
unintended emotional effect of considerable
magnitude. A discussion of effectiveness in
lite r a tu re should be able to include unin
tended effects as well as intended ones.
Also, such a discussion will be diagnostic
rather than hortatory; it will be more con
cerned with how effects are produced than with
what effects should be produced.57
ST
I t would be d i f f i c u l t to exaggerate the significance of
Burke's treatment of "form" in dealing with litu rg ic a l
action. The more one thinks about the whole notion of form,
the more one becomes convinced of its place of primacy in
any discussion about ritual a c tiv ity . Such an observation
may seem too obvious to warrant making it--and that is pro
bably because of the context in which it is made here. In
the daily context of performing ritu al acts, however,
notions about form can very easily slip into the background
and a merely habitual sequence takes over. Even in this
instance, of course, there is a kind of form present, but
nothing like the rich "form-fu1ness" which ritual demands if
it is to be repeatedly efficacious. Perhaps what is needed
is a balance between formlessness which is headed toward
serendipity and the kind of formalism which reduces to mere
motion a r it e which should be a profoundly human act. In
describing this balance I have relied on a root distinction
in Burke's theory of symbolic action. Here in his own
words:
Within the p rac tic ally limitless range of
scenes (or motivating situations) in terms of
which human action can be defined and studied,
there is one over-all dramatistic distinction
as regards the widening or narrowing of c i r
cumference. This is the distinction between
"action" and "sheer motion." "Action" is a
term for the kind of behavior possible to a
^
ty p ic a lly symbol-using animal (such as man) in
contrast with the extrasymbo1ic or nonsymbolic
operations of nature. . . .58
One of the major criticisms of the old liturgy is that
it reduced the role of the participants to that of mere
observers, passive recipients of the "fruits" of the
p rie s t's quasi-magica1 functions at the a lta r . And one of
the major claims of the new liturgy is that it has brought
the congregation into fu ll participation in the litu rg ica l
action, achieving this end by moving them from a status
rather more characterized by motion than action. There is,
in fact, no guarantee that the reformed litu rg y will always
achieve this a lte ratio n , but (and here, f in a l l y , is my main
point) to the extent that it does, we may account for its
success in terms of the effectiveness of its form.
Pre-Vatican II liturgy was capable of involving congre
gations by participation, or engaging them in the kind of
worship which clearly f u l f i l l e d litu rg y 's purpose. I speak
from personal experience, and I speak also in cautious
behalf of those who have gone to such energetic and even
dangerous lengths to preserve the old litu rg y . I can make
this assertion so confidently because--to quote myself
b r i e f ly - - " t o the extent that the old liturgy achieved
83
litu rg y 's purpose, we may account for its success in terms
Df the effectiveness of its form." Considerations of form
take us beyond the concerns of vernacular, verbal content,
and information, and into the very heart of litu rg ic a l
action. Considerations of form may prove to be one of the
most f r u i t f u l approaches to any efforts at renewing and
reforming the litu rg y.
Kenneth Burke defines form as "an arousing and
fu lfillm e n t of desires. A work has form in so far as one
part of it leads a reader to anticipate another part, to be
g ra tified by the sequence."59 Burke equates form with the
psychology of the audience--an important equation for our
purposes because it says a great deal about how we go about
deciding whether or not liturgy has efficacy; in other
words, it enables us to look at litu rg y with an evaluative
eye fixed on its effect on those who participate in it
rather than on the ritu a l actions and words apart from real
audiences.
Ritual Action, Form and Experience
The dialectic implied here between worshipper and
liturgy can be illuminated with the help of an insight
offered by the "reader-response" c r i t i c s , discussed b rie fly
w
in the introduction to this study. A piece of lite r a tu re ,
these c ritic s maintain, cannot be understood apart from
those who read it and should not be seen as "object."
Sim ilarly, liturgy (not only, or even primarily, litu rg ic a l
te x ts ) cannot be understood apart from its participants, who
are in some sense the makers of litu rg y . Liturgy then is
not primarily an objective "text" or entity; it does not
exist until a group of peop 1 eassemb 1 e to enact i t , to make
i t . What does pre-exist litu rg ic a l action is a record of
previous action, formulated in detail but in no sense
litu rg y anymore than a sonnet is fourteen lines of words.
It takes a reader to make a sonnet, and it takes a congrega
tion to make litu rg y. But neither the reader nor the
congregation begins in a vacuum. The point here is that the
pre-existing text, though not an objective r e a lit y , does
guide the experience of the reader/worshipper. Therefore,
its influence is significant, even though it cannot be the
only criterion for efficacious experience. Formularies are
important for what they jd jo (or enable audiences to do)
rather than what they say.60 Form, as defined by Burke,
determines experience more than information. So we look to
form in ritu al action more than to information.
85
There are, according to Burke, four kinds of form:
progressive, re p e titiv e , conventional, and minor or inciden
t a l . The f i r s t of these is divided into (1) syllogistic
progression and (2) qu alitative progression. Syllogistic
progression, Burke says,
is the form of a perfectly conducted argu
ment.,.,... To go from A to E through stages B,
C, and D is to obtain such form. W e call it
s yllog istic because, given certain things,
certain things must follow, the premises
forcing the conclusion. In so far as the
audience, from its acquaintance with the pre
mises feels the rightness of the conclusion,
the work is formal.61
Liturgy as Logic
In what sense can the liturgy be experienced as a
"perfectly conducted argument?" On at least two levels such
a view is common among the participants. First of a l l , the
celebration of the liturgy is experienced as a logical con
sequence of belonging to a group in whose behalf God has
intervened in history--and in a particular way. Given the
nature of the one who has intervened and the way in which
the intervention took place, we can speak of a kind of logic
of litu rg y which the worshippers share. From the premises
made known through an awareness of the events of salvation
history, those who see themselves as the subjects of those
86
events w ill feel the rightness or wrongness of a response to
them. Put another way, the idea of "covenant" implies a
certain syllogistic give and take. God has revealed himself
in a certain way, and therefore a certain kind of response
appropriately follows. If God is accepted as "the wholly
Other" who chose to reveal himself most dramatically in an
atoning sacrifice of a "divine Son," there are a limited
number of f i t t i n g ways in which those who accept such a
revelation can respond. An audience with an acquaintance
with premises such as these will feel the rightness of a
r it e which proclaims the logical consequences of such premi
ses .
Another way in which a certain syllog istic progression
is necessary in liturgy has to do with its public and uni
versal character as a ritual which unites members of a spe
c i f ic church in their belief as well as their expression of
i t . The new Ordo Missae is legislated for all those who
belong to the Roman Rite. There are far more profound
reasons for this insistence on uniformity than mere eccle
siastical paternalism or authoritarian control arising out
of tra d itio n al notions associated with traditional c e n t r a li
zation. The satisfaction which arises from a worshipper's
87
realization that "the mass is the same the world over" can
be a genuine response to deep-seated needs for id e n tif ic a
tion with a universal community of believers. Even this
realization is based ultimately on premises about God's will
to redeem all mankind and to bring the entire world into
harmony with it s e l f and with him. Such premises have the
effect of making the liturgy something far greater than any
specific individual or group. Thus, it is expected to exer -
cise an independence from anything akin to whim, caprice, or
"emergent occasions." And yet none of these considerations
goes counter to the provisions for local adaptation which
Vatican II encouraged. The liturgy has its own logic and it
progresses according to a form which is determined by
beliefs and values which are larger than any given
community; but it does not, because of this, leave any given
community behind, so to speak. On the contrary, the very
purpose of its larger concern is to assume every individual
community into a universal oneness. Congregations which are
aware of premises that articulate the universal character of
Christ's s a c rific ia l atonement will feel the rightness of a
litu rg y whose form clearly proclaims the consequences of
such premises. Put more precisely in Burkean terms, the
M
litu rg y will have form when its audience senses a s y llo
gistic pattern between its professed universality and the
way in which it is celebrated. And, of course, the prin
ciple works both ways: liturgy which is said to be an
important universal statement and yet is performed in a way
which is determined largely by immediate, local, or experi
mental concerns may be experienced as contradictory.
In an a rtic le in Worship magazine, Paul Holmer asserts
the need for the contemporary church to realize anew that
liturgy has a logic which must be reflected in its perfor
mance. In his own way he supports the conviction that the
premises upon which liturgy is based require in a syllo
gistic way a certain mode of execution.
The liturgy . . . cannot but help being a kind
of form. It is not as if God is changing so
rapidly that new. material has to be inserted
into the liturgy just to keep up with him. If
the liturgy were t o t a ll y , or even s i g n i f i
cantly, c u ltu ra lly dependent, then we could
say that it would need continual revision.
For with a changing material, plainly the form
would have to be different too. But liturgy
is not an expression of how people see things;
rather it proposes, instead, how God sees all
peop1e .62
Liturgical action, therefore, has the form of a perfectly
conducted argument; it lacks syllog istic form if the conclu
sion does not flow from the premises.
89
L i t urgy as Appropriate Sequence
The other aspect of progressive form in Burke's schema
is q u alitative progression, and we can discuss the liturgy
under this aspect with equal p r o f it . First of a l l , Burke's
def i n i t i on:
Qualitative progression, the other aspect
of progressive form, is subtler. Instead of
one incident in the plot preparing for some
other possible incident of plot . . . the pre
sence of one quality prepares us for the
introduction of another. . . . Such pro
gressions are qualitative rather than syl-
logistic as they lack the pronounced a n ti
cipatory nature of the syllog istic progress
ion. W e are prepared less to demand a cer
tain q u alitative progression than to recog
nize its rightness after the event. W e are
put into a state of mind which another state
of mind can appropriately f o l l o w . 63
I t is necessary at this point to distinguish the response to
s yllog istic progression from the response to qualitative
progression, and this can be done simply, though not without
risk . For purposes of analysis, let us say that syllogistic
progression appeals to the in te lle c t and qu alitative
progression appeals to the emotions. The risk involved is
that the distinction might be too severely drawn--and we
never want to lose sight of the response to liturgy as an
integral human response. An audience that feels the r ig h t
ness of a sequence and is g ra tifie d by it is involved on
90
both the intellectual and the emotional level. Neverthe
less, with the above caveat in mind, we can distinguish the
<
two for purposes of seeing how qualitative progresion lends
form to the liturgy in a way different from syllogistic
progression.
An Example of Qualitative Progression
Getting right down to cases, we can consider one rather
controversial part of the reformed order of the mass, the
Introductory Rites (see page 76)- Liturgists have noted
over and over again that this opening part of the mass is
cluttered, resulting in a vagueness with regard to its pur
pose. Their concerns might be resolved in great part by an
application of Burke's principal of q u alita tiv e progression.
The Introductory Rites begin with an entrance procession and
song intended to create an atmosphere of celebration. After
a greeting from priest to people and a brief introduction,
the penitential r it e follows (intended to arouse in the
congregation a sense of sinfulness and repentance). The
penitential r it e may be- augmented on special occasions by
the "water r i t e , " a sprinkling of the congregation symbolic
of baptism and the forgiveness of sin. This is followed
immediately (except in Lent and Advent) by the "Glory to
God," an exultant hymn of praise.
91
A bit of history is necessary before we can appreciate
the d i f f ic u l t ie s involved in this f i r s t part of the mass,
and before we can address ourselves to solving them in terms
of form under the aspect of qualitative progression. A
recent commentary on The Order of the Mass makes this obser
vation, admitting the d if f ic u lt i e s with the opening rites:
For centuries the Roman Mass, as generally
celebrated, had no penitential r i t e . It was
only after the Roman liturgy spread into
Ga11o-Frankish lands that the f i r s t elements
of such appear. The Confiteor [an abbreviated
form of this confession of sin is part of the
penitential r it e in the new order of the mass]
appeared among the prayers said by the priest
and ministers at the foot of the altar and was
also said by a minister prior to the d is trib u
tion of the eucharist. In both instances
these were private rather than public prayers.
Much discussion took place among the a r t i
sans of the Order of Mass. Should a peniten
t ia l r it e be included since the eucharist
i t s e l f is a sacrament of reconciliation? And
i f so, should such a r it e be used at all
times? What would the most appropriate loca
tion for a penitential r it e be? After much
deliberation it was decided to place a simple
penitential r it e at the beginning of the
c elebratio n.64
The d i f f i c u l t y with the penitential r it e is not p ri-
marily whether there should be one or how it should be
carried out. The problem with this r it e in the new order of
the mass is its location in the sequence of the introductory
92
r it e s , and that problem can be solved by applying the prin
ciple of qu alitative progression. Despite the last sentence
of the above quotat ion, the penitential r it e does not appear
at the beginning of the celebration. It appears after the
opening procession with its hymn, after the veneration of
the a lta r , after the incensations ( i f incense is used), and
after the sign of the cross and greeting by the celebrant.
And it is followed usually by an exultant hymn of praise.
It is also important to recognize that the entire introduc
tory r it e takes place in a very short span of time--from
five to ten minutes in most cases. What is asked of the
congregation in these few minutes? They are asked to
establish a mood of celebration (opening hymn and pro
cession, perhaps accompanied by incensations), then express
another beginning with the sign of the cross and greeting,
then ponder their sins and repentance in silence, perhaps
with the accompanying sprinkling, and then break forth into
another hymn (the "Glory to God") before the "Opening
Prayer" is prayed by the celebrant.
Recalling Burke's definition of the effect of q u a lita
tive progression of form, "we are put into a state of mind
which another state of mind can appropriately follow." The
93
introductory rites of the new order of the mass may not
achieve an appropriate sequence of states of mind. In the
trad ition al order of Christian religious experience, con
fession and repentance and the experience of forgiveness
precede a mood of celebration and exaltation; they do not
follow such a mood, nor can a congregation be expected to
alternate so quickly between states of mind which are
o p p o s i t e . I t is not surprising then that we find some
congregations changing the order of things, or altering the
beginning ceremonies of the mass, to satisfy the need for
more appropriate sequence. In penitential seasons
(especially Lent), they omit the entrance hymn and greeting,
the procession enters in silence, the assembly kneels, and
the f i r s t words spoken are "Lord, have mercy."
S t r ic t ly speaking, such alterations in the order of the
mass are forbidden, but one must grant that they have the
merit of establishing clearly a state of. mind (solemn aware
ness of sin and penance) from which another state of mind
(celebration as a response to forgiveness) can appropriately
follow. A further irony can be seen when we recall that the
old order of the mass provided for a similar, more t r a d i
tio n a l, sequence of actions.
94
T i l l recently a rite'known as the Asperges
was celebrated before the principal Mass on
Sunday. The word comes from Psalm 51:9:
"Cleanse me of sin with hyssop, that I may be
p u rified ." Verses of the psalm were sung
while the priest walked through the church and
sprinkled holy water over the people.66
The point here is that the Asperges actually did precede the
mass; it was not performed after the mass had begun with a
hymn and greeting in a s p irit of celebration. What is now
called the "Sunday Renewal of Baptism," or "Water Rite," is
c learly a form of the Asperges. The fact that it is
described now as a reminder of baptism (as is every ritual
cleansing for the Christian), and the existing rubric that
it "replaces" the penitential r i t e , do not alter the
congregation's experience of it as an emphasis on sin and
forgiveness--and therefore more f i t t i n g as a preparatory
action, inappropriately sandwiched between actions which
signify celebration as a result of having been forgiven. If
the "Water R ite ” is to exert the experiential force of which
i t is capable, it may have to conform to the requirements
of qu alitative progression, whereby it is enabled to
establish a state of mind from which another state can
appropriately follow.
I have considered one r e la t iv e ly minor example of
litu rg ic a l action in which q u alitative progression is not
95
upheld. And I have done so at some 1ength--part 1y because
of the complexity of the matter, and partly to indicate how
considerations of preserving something from an e a rlie r r it e
caused the artisans of the new order of the mass to end up
with a cluttered beginning. In this instance, as in others,
matter dominated over form, and what seemed to make sense
(from an in te lle c tu al point of view) is now discovered to
lack appeal (the emotional experience of the new r i t e ) . The
aspect of form which Burke calls "qualitative progression"
may explain why this is so. In the introduction to his
discussion of form, Burke says, "such a discussion will be
diagnostic rather than hortatory: it w ill be more concerned
with how effects are produced than with what effects should
be p r o d u c e d . "67 Obviously, I have gone beyond a diagnostic
approach by suggesting that the various parts of the c lu t
tered introductory rites of the mass are arranged in such a
way that the effect that should be produced is frustrated.
I have suggested that the principle of qualitative progression
not only serves as a diagnostic tool ( i t explains why the
r it e may not "work"), but also indicates what may need to be
changed. But I have not vitiated the diagnostic power of
Burke's distinction between how effects are produced and
96
//hat effects should be produced, since diagnosis is for the
purpose of prescribing a remedy.
From a broader viewpoint, the various manifestations of
the mass in different contexts (daily mass, Sunday mass,
funeral masses, wedding masses, masses according to varied
litu rg ic a l seasons) could all profit from an application of
the principles underlying Burke's discussion of form--and
especially qu alitative progression.
Ritual Form as Repetitive, and Vice-versa
"Repetitive form," says Burke, "is the consistent main
taining of a principle under new guises. It is the restate
ment of the same thing in different w a y s . "68 it is not
d i f f i c u l t to see how rep e titiv e form is peculiarly relevant
to litu rg y, or how it can serve as a principle to guide
litu rg ic a l action toward effectiveness. The message or
meaning of the mass as s a c rific ia l banquet (re-enactment of
the significant events in Christ's l i f e and death) is per
petuated for all time by divine command: "Do this in memory
of me." It is, by d e fin itio n , a ritu a l to be celebrated
over and over again, as a proclamation and celebration of
what God has done for creation in his redemptive plan.
Despite variations in degree of solemnity, in setting, or in
97
audience (congregation), the mass is designed for
"sustaining an attitude" (Burke's words) and therefore bears
<
a clear and constant aspect of rep e titiv e form. Indeed, as
Burke says further, "repetitive form, the restatement of a
theme by new details, is basic to any work of art, or to any
other kind of orientation, for that matter. It is our only
method of 'talking on the s u b je c t.'"69 Before the recent
changes in the litu rg y, repet itiv e form could, in certain
ways, be detected more easily but if the new Order of the
Mass is followed, rep e titiv e form can s t i l l be very much
present. However, when liberties are taken with the struc
ture, or when the liturgy is used for the proclamation of
secular issues such as social justice at the expense of its
central purpose, then we experience a diminution of rep e ti
tive form-and the in te g rity of the mass is threatened. As a
gratuitous act, the litu rg y is broader than any human event
or situation, incorporating the entire human experience, and
the form it takes must be consistent with its universal
message. The relevance of liturgy is seen in its t o t a l i t y ,
rather than its pa rtic u 1a r i t y , and the good news it
proclaims dominates every other consideration, reappearing
in different guises, to be sure, but never disappearing
98
beneath concerns peculiar to any given group or situation.
Burke's notion of repetitive form can serve as an effective
guide for those who design litu rg ic a l functions, prodding
them to ask repeatedly, "Does this text, rubric, or ceremony
restate the central message of the mass, or does it in tro
duce an idea or emphasis which might sidetrack that
message?"
The homilist or preacher can p ro fit more than most,
perhaps, from an awareness of the effect of rep e titiv e form.
The homily, an integral part of the mass, is nothing more or
less than another guise under which the central message of
the litu rg y makes its appearance. As the Constitution makes
clear ( A r t . 35), it should not be seen as distinct from the
mass in its purpose or message, and should not aim at
addressing immediate concerns, even concerns which are of
excruciating importance to the preacher's audience. In a
recent publication entitled F u lfille d in Your Hearing; The
Homily in the Sunday Assembly, the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops wrote concerning the homilist:
To be in touch with the cares and con
cerns, needs and good fortunes of the assembly
does not mean that the preacher has to answer
questions or solve problems in every homily.
There will be occasions when nothing we can
say will do anything to change a situation.
W e cannot raise a dead daughter to l i f e ; our
words will not stop inflatio n or lower
99
unemployment. What our words can do is help
people make connections between the re a litie s
of their lives and the r e a lit ie s of the
Gospel. W e can help them see how God in Jesus
Christ has entered and identified himself with
the human r e a litie s of pain and of happi
ness . 70
I f it seems at f i r s t reading that such a stance ignores the
audience and their needs, then we must recall again what
litu rg y is about. It is not a panacea or p a llia t iv e for the
world's i l l s , but an orientation for people's b e lie f. As
such, litu rg y does provide answers to prob1ems- - but on the
level of faith and hope, not on the level of fate and f o r
tune.
To sum up this brief discussion of rep e titiv e form, and
to further c la r i f y how it applies to efficacious litu rg y , I
turn again to Burke's words, recalling by way of emphasis
his contention that form is identified with the psychology
of the audience.
By a varying number of details, the reader is
led to feel more or less consciously the prin
ciple underlying them--he then requires that
this principle be observed in the giving of
further d e ta i1s.71
Considering the current situation in the light of these
words, it becomes clear that expectations may have been i l l
formed i f the litu rg ic a l audience f a il s to feel a discre-
100
pancy of form in ritu a l that does not consistently maintain
its central principle. On the other hand, and f i n a l l y , a
litu rg ic a l assembly aware of the central purpose of the
litu rg y will require that, admitting of degree, it be com
municated in every part of the litu rg y , in accord with the
principle of rep etitiv e form.
W e need not spend many words on the next item in Burke's
l is t of kinds of form. Conventional form, he says,
involves to some degree the appeal of form as
fojrm. Progressive, re p e titiv e , and minor
forms, may be effective even though the reader
has no awareness of their formality. . But when
a form appeals as form, we designate it as
conventional form. Any form can become con
ventional, and be sought for i t s e 1f--whether
it be as complex as the Greek tragedy or as
compact as the sonnet. The invocation to the
Muses; the theophany in a play of Euripedes;
the processional and recessional of the
Episcopalian choir; . . . these are all
examples of conventional forms having varying
degrees of v a lid ity today. . . .
W e might note, in conventional form, the
element of "categorical expectancy." That is,
whereas the anticipations and gratifications,
of progressive and rep etitive form arise
during the process of reading, the expectation
of conventional form may be anterior to the
reading.72
A congregation assembled for a Sunday Eucharist has cer
tain expectations with regard to what they are about to do.
The mass, they know, is structured in a certain way and they
101
expect it to be celebrated according to their expectations.
In recent years the secularization process as described
e a rlie r has taken its to ll on conventional form. At the
risk of oversimplifying the situation, we might question the
degree of appeal we find in "forms as form" in contemporary
society. It is a commonplace that conventions and rituals
have been jettisoned by the score in recent years. Does the
semi-paranoia that runs from anything described as "empty
r it u a l" (ritualism ) explain in part the increased need for
something new and d iffe re n t, and the lack of appeal in
t r a d it i o n - - in conventional form? Burke has dealt with this
question in his own way by noting the shifty nature of con
ventional form, but insisting- that it endures despite
changing demands with regard to the manner in which it pre
sents it s e lf :
Form, having to do with the creation and gra
t if i c a t i o n of needs, is "correct" in so far as
it g r a tifie s the needs which it creates. The
appeal of the form in this sense is obvious:
form j_s the appeal. The appeal of progressive
and rep etitiv e forms as they figure in the
major organization of a work, needs no further
explanation. Conventional form is a s h if tie r
topic, p a rtic u la rly since the conventional
forms demanded by one age are as resolutely
shunned by another. Often they owe their pre
sence in art to a survival from a different
situation. . . . At other times a conven
tional form may arise from a definite func
tional purpose. . . . The reader has
certain categorical expectations which the
102
poet must meet. As for the formality of
beginning and endings--such procedures as the
greeting of the New Year, the ceremony at
laying a cornerstone, the "house-warming," the
funeral, all indicate that the human mind is
prone to feel beginnings and endings as
such.73
F in a lly, a word about.minor or incidental form. Liturgy
is replete with metaphor, analogy, parable, and ritual
gesture. Such features distinguish the language (verbal and
non-verbal) of liturgy and provide us with a bridge to the
next section of this study--the nature of litu rg ic a l
language. The point must be made, however, that many of the
minor forms which characterized the pre-Vatican II liturgy
have disappeared, being replaced by more lit e r a l and didac
tic features. Form has given way to information in a par
t ic u la r ly noticeable way insofar as non-verbal and Titanic
language has been replaced by "meaningful" assertions and
instructional exhortations. One brief example: the e a rlie r
discussion of the Penitential Rite suggested that its place
ment in the Order of the Mass frustrates the effect desired
through q u alita tive progression of form. An older form of a
section of this r i t e , the Asperges, may have been more f o r
mally effe c tiv e . In that older r i t e , the celebrant began by
intoning the psalm verse which gave the r i t e its name:
103
Asperges me, Domi ne (Sprinkle me, 0 Lord). Then he
sprinkled the assembly while the rest of the psalm was sung.
The r it e concluded with a simple prayer for protection. In
its effect this simple r it e was an eloquent (primarily
non-verbal) celebration of forgiveness of sin, and prepara
tion for the ensuing litu rg y . The new r i t e , by contrast,
goes to some didactic length in making clear what is already
c le a r--in this opening instruct ion/exhortation:
Dear friends, this water w ill be used to
remind us of our baptism. Let us ask God to
bless i t , and to keep us fa ith fu l to the
S p irit he has given us.74
Then a rather lengthy prayer of blessing follows (several
forms are available) before the actual sprinkling is done:
God our Father, your g if t of water brings l i f e
and freshness to the earth; it washes away our
sins and brings us eternal l i f e . . . .75
Fin ally, after the sprinkling, there is yet another prayer:
May almighty God cleanse us of our sins, and
through the eucharist we celebrate make us
worthy to sit at his table in his heavenly
kingdom. Amen.76
The form of this simple ritu a l seems crushed under the
weight of information; consequently, it may not bear f r e
quent repetition without becoming tiresome. It may f a il the
crucial test which any ritu a l must pass (efficacious
104
repetition) because it substitutes the limited appeal of
information for the unlimited appeal of form.
In this discussion of form I have asserted that Burke's
notions on the subject are helpful in two ways: f i r s t , they
enable us to see why certain aspects and approaches of
litu rg y may f a il to appeal to litu rg ic a l audiences; second,
they may be of great help in designing litu rg ic a l actions in
this age of continuing litu rg ic a l renewal. More d ire c tly to
my purpose a consideration of form supports (and perhaps
provides a remedy for) the f i r s t of the major problems with
the new litu rg y as I have outlined them: a m u 11 i p1i cat i on
of words and a corresponding neglect of non-verbal el e-
ments, resulting in a r it e which is overburdened with ver
bal content. I have seen in this problem, as stated, an
exemplification of Burke's proposition: "The hypertrophy of
the psychology of information is accompanied by the
corresponding atrophy of the psychology of form."77
I have maintained throughout this discussion that a
discrepancy between form and content leads toward a misun
derstanding of litu rg y--as it does everywhere else--a misun
derstanding which frustrates the end of litu rg ic a l
celebrations, creating a division between the unchanging
105
message of the mass and the expression adopted for com
municating that message. I have also demonstrated, with the
help of Burke's discussion of the psychology of form, that
the purpose of the mass (a re-presentation of the cosmic
redemptive acts of Christ) must be recognized in the exter
nal structure (and manner of execution), and that adaptation
of the mass ritu a l which goes so far as to be perceived as
ad hoc or limited to a concern with local issues and narrow
perspectives will inevitably cloud the message of the mass.
The lack of complementarity between implied purpose and exe
cution may frequently account for the lack of appeal
experienced by litu rg ic a l audiences.
106
Chapter Three: Language as Scenic in the Liturgy
Worsh ip magazine, a periodical which has established
i t s e l f as leader in interd isciplinary studies of the
litu rg y , published an issue in November 1978 devoted
e n tire ly to a consideration of litu rg ic a l language. Six
contributors, ranging from theologians to English teachers,
lament the condition of the language in which the liturgy is
now cast, having been, in a very brief time, translated from
Latin into English. Their formulation of the problems may
be b r ie fly noted: the language is prosaic and didactic; it
was rendered under the aegis of an inadequate philosophy of
translation; it lacks solemn ity , beauty, and emot i ona 1
range; it has l i t t l e aesthetic merit; it does not harmonize
with the nonverbal language of the liturgy; it alters the
theology of the original Latin; and it f a ils to achieve a
balance between personal spontaneity and the restraint or
"distance" which makes it suitable for diversified
communities.^^
107
None of these d if f ic u lt i e s seems insurmountable, though
the complexities of language in general, and litu rg ic a l
language s p e c ific ally , will not permit easy solutions. Once
the problems are isolated and id e n tifie d , however, and
experts turn their attention to them, there can be l i t t l e
doubt that the features of litu rg ic a l language which are
seen as fa ulty or inadequate can be modified and made more
suitable. Some significant headway has already been made.
Speech Act Theory and Liturgy
In a recent work on language in the litu rg y, James H.
Ware has identified four kinds of speech acts which are
constitutive elements of litu rg ic a l di scourse.These are
"enabling," "re la tio n a l," "directive," and "exalting" speech
acts. Enabling words involve blessing and forgiving.
Relational acts are those which indicate covenanting, or
stating a relationship. The directive speech act is the
didactic or teaching channel. And exalting forms are those
which concentrate on the act of praising or adoring. Ware's
distinctions are useful, and his overall thesis is cogent
and convincing: litu rg ic a l language does not accomplish its
purpose primarily through words of wisdom and instruction,
though there is a kind of instruction to be gained from the
108
language of worship; nevertheless, litu rg ic a l speech is p r i
marily performative— it accomplishes what it expresses in
the very act of express ion. His indebtedness to speech act
theory as formulated by Austin and further developed by
Searle is obvious and graciously acknowledged.80
Ware's purpose here is to explain why litu rg ies some
times do not succeed: because they aim at representation
without transformat ion--informing rather than forming. Thus
his division of litu rg ic a l language into four functioning
aspects constitutes a practical approach toward greater
effectiveness in litu rg ic a l discourse. What becomes most
immediately clear in Ware's study is that he is a r h e to r i
cian, aiming his discussion at the effects which authentic
litu rg ic a l language will have on the worshipping par
ticipants. His acknowledgement of the power of language to
achieve something as well as represent something moves him
away from a r a t io n a lis tic view of communication and into the
world of rhetoric and strategies- - a messy world at times,
but possessing the incontestable advantage of being the real
one.
Another writer who uses Austin and Searle as a spring
board to an examination of litu rg ic a l language is Jean
109
.a d r il r e , who identified a threefold "p erform ativity":
"existential induction, in s titu tio n , and p re s e n tific a -
tion."81 The f i r s t refers simply to the power of language
to dispose the person using or hearing it to a certain spe
cified r e a l i t y - - i n litu rg ic a l discourse this would mean that
the person is led into the world of worship and prayer, a
world in which the partner in dialogue is God (a very d i f
ferent world from that of ordinary dialogue). The second
kind of performativity (in s titu tio n ) exerts a unifying
effect on the assembled worshippers, making them a community
by the special use of plural forms ("us" and "we") which
signify that collective a c tiv ity is being engaged in.
Fin a lly , Ladri^re speaks of present i f i c a t ion as the most
fundamental aspect of performativity in litu rg ic a l language:
By all those acts, which it effects, this
language makes present for the participants,
not as a spectacle, but as a r e a lit y whose
efficacy they take into their very own l i f e ,
that about which it speaks and which it
effects in diverse ways; that is, the mystery
of Christ, his l i f e and his death, and his
resurrection: the revelation conveyed to us
in him of the mystery of God: the accomplish
ment of the eternal plan by virtue of which we
are called to become children of God, co-heirs
of Christ in eternal l i f e . This mystery is
not made present by litu rg ic a l language in the
same way as descriptive language which pic
tures forth that of which it speaks. Instead
it endows it so to speak with its own opera-
t i v i t y ( i . e . , that of the acts which make it
up), in order to become operative for the com
munity established by the liturgy.^2
110
These studies of litu rg ic a l language are based on
ling uistic analysis, of course, and they have value for
those who are charged with solving the problems as stated by
the contributors to Wor sh i p. Insofar as they c la r if y
something of language's function, they can lend a hand
toward the formulation of litu rg ic a l texts which are con
sistent with the ritu a l action they accompany. Recognizing
the power of language to accomplish something (rather than
merely refer to something) is already an advance for
litu rg ic a l reform because it begins to lead us away from
didacticism and information and back to performance and
f orm.
The Scene/Act Ratio: Ritual Language
There is, however, one very important thing lacking in
these studies of litu rg ic a l language, it seems to me. While
they recognize the performative power in litu rg ic a l texts,
they do so sometimes in isolation from the liturgy as a
whole, as an act. W e have seen in the previous chapter that
the liturgy is defined by the church most succinctly as a
"memorial banquet," a " s a c rific ia l meal," or simply,
" s a c r ific ia l banquet." This is a definition of something
which is acted out, an action which involves doing. To
I l l
neglect the term "act" when referring to litu rg y is to
neglect its most basic feature. Insofar as studies of
litu rg ic a l language have implied that the words of liturgy
are central, that litu rg y is effected by means of r it u a l ly
proclaimed texts, the threat of verbalism w ill remain.
Thus, for purposes of balance, and in the hope of rediscov
ering the primacy of litu rg y as symbolic a ctio n, I propose
to bring the second term of the Burkean Pentad to service
and discuss litu r g ic a l language as scene. In doing so, I
have no intention of depriving the language of liturgy of
any of its force or importance. But I do propose to. put the
language of litu rg y in its proper place, so to speak. Ul
timately, I am doing the language of litu rg y a great service
for only when i t is seen in dynamic ratio to the act of
liturgy w ill i t be capable of exerting its unique force.
Kenneth Burke speaks of scene and act as "container and
thing contained."
Using "scene" in the sense of setting, or
background, and "act" in the sense of action, one
could say that "the scene contains the act. . . ."
I t is a principle of drama that the nature
of acts and agents should be consistent with the
nature of the scene. And whereas comic and gro
tesque works may deliberately set these elements
at odds with one another, audiences make allowance
for such lib e r t y , which reaffirms the same p rin c i
ple of consistency in its very violation. . . .
112
[E]xamining f i r s t the relation between
scene and act, all we need note here is the
principle whereby the scene is a f i t
"container" for the act, expressing in fixed
properties the same quality that the action
expresses in terms of development.83
To say that language contains an action seems odd at f ir s t
glance, but a word of illu s t r a t io n can explain how this is
so. Burke says that the proportion between scene and act
would be: "scene is to act as implicit is to e x p lic it. One
could not deduce the details of the action from the details
of the setting, but one could deduce the quality of the
action from the quality of the s e t t i n g . "84 Thus a play
which begins in a stage-set which is characterized by dark
colors and dim lighting could safely be predicted to deal
with dark and somber action, though the specific action
would not be known until the play i t s e l f unfolded. What is
implied in the set is made e x p lic it in the action of the
pi ay.
The action of the play, its message and import, deter
mines the appearance of the set, not vice versa. The set
contains the pi ay as a f i t container. So it is with the
litu rg ic a l drama: the action of the mass determines the
nature of the language which contains it and complements i t .
Language does not determine the nature of the litu rg ic a l
113
action, which in the case of the mass is the re-enactment of
what- Christ did in sacrificing himself for the redemption of
the wor1d.
One immediate consequence of this view is a correct ion
of that notion of the mass which sees it only (or even
primarily) as a re-enactment of the Last Supper. This
notion could argue that the accounts of this meal in Sacred
Scripture (called the institu tio n narratives) determine the
nature and meaning of the mass--so that the words determine
the act. But insisting on language as scene and therefore
subordinating it to act helps maintain the Church's larger
view of the mass as the sacrifice of Christ in its entirety
( l i f e , death, resurrection), which includes the Last Supper
but goes far beyond i t , giving it an e n tire ly new meaning
and significance. Thus, the necessary insistence on the
term s a c r if ic ia l when we define the mass as "s a c rific ia l
banquet." Christ did not say simply, "Take and eat. Take
and drink." He said, "Take and e a t--th is is my body; take
and d rin k --th is is my blood," thereby making dramatically
clear that a very different kind of meal is involved here.
And it is Christ's action that determined the language he
chose to accompany i t , not his words which determined the
114
nature of his action. The action expressed by these words
of in s titu tio n go far beyond the Passover meal he shared
tfith his disciples on the night before he died. They are
the scenic background against which the entirety of his
s a c r if ic ia l l i f e , death, and resurrection are played out.
The sacrifice of his body began with the incarnation and was
completed with the outpouring of his blood on Calvary and
his resurrection from the dead.
Liturgical texts, then, are settings which are suitable
for the enactment of these central Christian mysteries. As
such, the language of the texts will be determined by the
nature of the action they accompany and complement. This
view seems the only one which is capable of solving the
problems of contemporary litu rg ic a l language. If we judge
the efficacy of litu rg ic a l language in terms of its fitness
as a container for the litu rg ic a l action it contains, we
stand a much greater chance of achieving a healthy dialectic
and balance between word and action: words then become a
performative accompaniment to action, while deriving their
performative power from the action they accompany. Perhaps
most significant of a l l , when litu rg ic a l language is
understood as scene and backdrop for litu rg ic a l action, we
115
will learn greater economy with words and greater appre
ciation for the "doing" of litu rg y.
Fam iliarity Versus C larity As Criterion
Luis Maldonado sees certain c r it e r ia for renewal as
stated by the Council as something less than in tune with
the contemporary situation. First among these is c la r it y ,
which raises the issue of what features should characterize
litu rg ic a l language:
The litu rg ic a l reform was brought about by
c r i t e r i a wh i ch are co ns i derab1y out of line
with the entire cultural and spiritual change
of recent years. As an example of th is , I
point out the criterion which is repeated f r e
quently and almost obsessively throughout
Sacrosanctum Concilium indicating that rites
should be simp1e , b rie f, fa c ile and clear.
They should be simplified as much as possible
in order that they might be understood without
d i f f i c u l t y . (See a rtic le s , 21, 34, 35, 50,
5 0 .a, 5 0 .b, 59, 62 , 72 .)
Today we find many who want exactly the
opposite, who miss rites which are complex,
polychromatic, abundant, lavish, rich, long,
with elaborate ceremonial. Why must rites be
simple and brief when the object is to enter
. by their means into the extraordinary and
festive world? Above a l l , whatever is meant
by rites which are "clear"? Do we not find
ourselves confronted with an anthropology
which is very r a t io n a lis t, Westernizing, as we
have indicated b e f o r e ? 8 5
To respond to Maldonado's rhetorical questions, I refer
to Richard Lanham's work Style: An Anti-Textbook.86 In the
116
second chapter of this delightful tre a tis e , Lanham discusses
the issue of c la r it y -- th e c la r i t y prescribed by prose ana-
lyists of the "do and don'ts" school. After lis tin g a
number of scholars who have made "Clarity" a god-term,
Lanham begins his defense of obscurity.
People, even lit e r a r y people, seldom con
tent themselves with being clear. They invent
jargon, argot, odd ways of being clear. They
impose nefarious designs upon their neighbors.
They repeat things for the pleasure of r e p e ti
tion. They usually swim in a muddy inep
titu de, and even when they succeed in being
clear it is often only to seem clever. You
would think, from the unexamined god-term
C la rity has become, that students of prose had
never heard of nonreferentia 1 language--
emotional, phatic, symbolic, purely social. A
wholly denotative prose is found as seldom as
a purely denotative poetry. People are just
not that way. "Be clear!" The moral version,
"Be good!" offers as much help. No one would
di sagree. But such moral coordinates do not
describe prose in a fallen world. C larity
stands indeed as a laudable aim. If we are
w illing to define it broadly enough, it may
stand for all laudable aims. But narrow or
broad, it needs examination.87
Lanham then proceeds to examine the notion of c la r i t y ,
demonstrating that any simple notion of what makes prose and
its message (form and content) clear must be ignorant of how
language works. What determines c la r it y is audience, pur
pose, speaker, and all those other considerations which
comprise the rhetorical situation. The case is not d if -
ITT
rerent with litu rg y . To render the litu rg ic a l texts under
the aegis of a simplistic notion of c la r it y is certain to
render them apart from the ritu a l action for which they are
a complementary background. And yet, following the
Council's directive, recent translations of litu rg ic a l texts
aetray some of the weaknesses noted e a rlie r : they lack
solemnity, beauty, and emotional range; they have l i t t l e
aesthetic merit; they do not harmonize with the litu rg ic a l
action and so forth.
The absolutely clear message, clearly perceived, does
not exist except in the kind of communication engaged in by
computers. It is not to be found in the language of liturgy
simply because c la r i t y (in the r a t io n a lis tic or logical
sense) does not pertain to symbol, r i t u a l , or liturgy in any
helpful way. There is a quality of prose which makes it
clear, however, in a thoroughly modified sense--a sense
which is peculiarly appropriate to litu rg ic a l prose.
Lanham's point here is reminiscent of what has been said
e a rlie r about Burke's notion of form:
Fa m ilia rity, more than any other one
thing, would seem to determine c l a r it y .
C la rity 's model of models, the prose of John
Dryden, seems far from clear to a student
whose prose reading has started at Thomas
Hardy and soared to Ernest Hemingway.
Conversely, a psychological report incompre
hensible to me opens like a flower to a
118
psychologist. . . . F a m ilia rity means
reassurance. C la rity 's f i r s t job is to make
us feel at home. W e want to see where we are.
And it is not simple f a m i li a r it y of manner
that we expect, but of content as w e l l . 88
Lanham is saying here that prose will be "clear" when it
meets the expectations of those to whom it is addressed. In
Burkean terms Lanham1s position reminds us of a feature of
conventional form. In litu rg ic a l terms this translates to
mean that the languageof liturgy will share something of
the immutability and permanence, as well as the transcen
dence, of the action it complements. It will be fam iliar to
the worshipper who has given himself over to the litu rg ic a l
action--because it draws its recognizable features from that
action and i t s features, which include, but go far beyond,
any notion about conveying information or rendering the mass
" i n t e l l i g i b l e . "
One final quotation from Lanham's treatment of style
w ill demonstrate his acute awareness of the rhetorical func
tion of prose style, and, by implication, the rhetorical
function of litu rg ic a l language.
At the base of prose style, then, we find not
only the need to communicate but the s p irit of
play, the delight in form for its own sake. A
zeal to inform has in our time bleached out
this delight, but we should not therefore con
fuse the two. "Prose," one treatise t e lls us,
"has mainly if not en tire ly a descriptive
function." Turn this advice upside down.
119
Description describes only a small part of
what prose does. Find its true center of gra
vity . . . in the regularity with which it
pleases us. C larity , like the Books' other
shibboleth, persuasion, is not an act of logic
but an act of charm.89
F a m iliarity, form, a s p irit of play, charm: these are
qualities of language which are more in tune with gratuitous
ritu a l action than logical c la r it y or transparency.
Evaluating Prescribed and Spontaneous Texts
There are several points in the new order of the mass
which allow for spontaneous formulations of texts by the
celebrant. This was not the case with the old order of the
mass. Every text and word was r ig id ly legislated in the
pre-Vatican II mass, and any notion of departing from the
book was unthinkable. Such r i g i d i t y had its drawbacks, no
doubt, but it also had its advantages. The freedom to
interpolate in the new liturgy likewise has its advantages
and its risks. One of the major advantages, most would
agree, is that it allows the celebrant to adapt the liturgy
to a specific audience or s itu a tio n - - to t a il o r the liturgy
somewhat to groups who have a discernible identity over and
above their iden tity as Christian-Catho 1ics assembled for
worship. For example, masses celebrated for children, or in
retirement homes, masses for monastic communities, and
masses for mixed congregations in large parish churches.
120
At f i r s t glance, such freedom seems simply to increase
the likelihood of a more personal and meaningful liturgy for
homogeneous groups, and the success of the freedom provided
depends largely on the se n s itiv ity and s k ill of the
celebrant who takes i t . The risk concomitant with spon
taneity is also obvious: celebrants who are insensitive to
the essential nature of the litu rg ic a l act are lik e ly to
introduce a kind of narrow subjectivity through language
which is far too specific and colloquial to carry the weight
of ritu a l re-enactment.
When we hear a tone of informality which borders on the
garrulous and the excessively f a m i l i a r , the exalted action
is not supported by the restraint and dignity of speech
called for by such action. Add to the situation all those
external signs of something other than informal quotidian
interaction (vestments, a lta r , sacred space and time) and
the impropriety becomes more obvious. The contradiction
does not remain simple contradiction, however. As form
follows function, so will the informality of language be
followed by a diminished s e n s itiv ity to sacral and ritual
action. The combination of the vernacular with subjective
spontaneity works an influence which gradually reduces a
121
sacred act, separate from everyday a c tiv it y , to a social
gathering whose success will be judged by the depth of
camaraderie more than the profundity of transcendent r e l i
gious experience. The dialectic between the mass as ritu al
act and language as scene can be discerned as mutual--a
rea liza tio n lending further credence to a position which
asserts the crucial importance of language appropriate to
the action it accompanies. How much latitude can be per
mitted before the language employed is discovered to exer
cise a destructive effect on the nature of the mass as a
r itu a l act, whose purpose is to re-present what Christ has
accomplished for the world in his s a c rific ia l l i f e , death,
and resurrection? The question is crucial. And it applies
to the language of the litu rg ic a l books quite as urgently as
it does to the spontaneous interpolations allowed for in the
new r i t e .
As we examine both spontaneous texts and those
legislated by the Church, it will become increasingly clear
that we need some criterion by which to evalute them as well
as formulate them. The ultimate criterion is the one
reiterated above, and discussed at length in the previous
chapter: the nature of the mass as a sacred act. This more
122
than anything else must determine whether the language
employed is appropriate, providing in words a f i t t i n g con
tainer for the action it contains. But we also need a c r i
terion which w ill recognize the differences between
litu rg ic a l texts.
Purpose as Ultimate Criterion
It is clear, in liturgy as in all human communication,
that language serves a variety of functions: the "Holy,
Holy, Holy" is different in function from the text of the
preacher's homily. Determining the function and purpose of
various litu rg ic a l texts will enable us to evalute the
potential effectiveness of their formulation (and to explain
why they sometimes misfire in actual use). W e can apply the
simple questions: "What is this particular text supposed to
do? And is it formulated in a way that insures its
success?"
One of the most useful approaches to the world of human
communication is that of Roman Jakobson, who schematizes the
universe of discourse in the following w a y : 90
context
message
addresser---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------addressee
contact
code
Very simply, Jakobson sees these six factors at work in
lin g u istic exchange. The addresser is the speaker, the
123
addressee is the one spoken to. The context is whatever is
referred to, the message is what is actually communicated
about that context. The contact is the channel by which the
communication takes place, and, f i n a l l y , the code is that
mutually understood set of symbols (words/language) which
makes the- communication possible.
W e are interested here in the purpose of litu rg ic a l
texts. As represented above, Jakobson's schema is merely
descriptive, and does not enable us to analyze discourse
according to purpose. So we must complete the schema by
adding the element of purpose, as does Jakobson himself:
Referent i a 1
(context)
Poet i c
(mes sag e )
Emotive Conative
(addresser)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------(addressee)
P hat i c
(contact)
Meta 1i ng ua 1
( code)
Although it is nearly impossible to imagine language
which is restricted e n tire ly to one purpose, it is not
impossible to distinguish among purposes and thereby deter
mine which is dominant in a given te xt. Consider, for
instance, the greeting extended by the celebrant, "The Lord
be with you." The dominant purpose in that greeting is what
124
Jakobson terms phat i c , having to do with establishing con
tact with the congregation. As a ritu a l greeting (related
to "How do you do?") it assumes a more s t r i c t l y phatic pur
pose, agreed upon beforehand and having its predetermined
response in the people's words, “And also with you." The
priest who elaborates on this ritu a l greeting ("My brothers
and sisters, the Lord is with you," or some similar variant)
runs the risk of introducing a .number of conflicting pur
poses which may be confusing in the ritu a l context. He may
be engaging in self-express ion here (emotive) to reveal
»
something of his good w i l l , or communicating to the audience
his sincerity and warmth to e l i c i t the same from them
(conative). A statement about the indwelling of d iv in ity in
the Christian emerges as he moves from the subjunctive to
the indicative mood, and thereby introduces a referential
purpose. Clearly he is simply trying to avoid what he fears
is cold ritualism . But phatic discourse is a ritu alized
formula in ordinary conversation and we do not shun it or
strive to warm it up, especially in formal settings. If we
do we soon find that we make our partners in conversation
uncomfortable. And, indeed, the awkward hesitancy which
often precedes a congregation's response to such variations
125
indicates that it is probably better to use the formula,
which has the kind of c la r it y of purpose and the f a m ilia r it y
which Lanham would extol. Once such changes are accepted by
the congregation as proper to the Mass, we may have moved
from ritu a l to camaraderie.
The cumulative effect of such lib e rtie s is not insig ni
ficant for the congregation exposed to them, and the
celebrant who appreciates the purely phatic function of
language w ill not be compelled to avoid it and thereby risk
jeopardizing both the flow and the s p ir it of the litu rg y .
There is a great deal of phatic language in litu rg y, the
purpose being to keep channels of communication open. This
is because litu rg y is ritu a lize d behavior, non-referentia 1
for the most part, and having the quality of contact for the
sake of contact. Into this category would f a ll most songs
of praise, lita n ic formulae, invocations and responses, and
prayer which is characterized by praise rather than p e t i
tion.
In recent years several changes have been made in the
choral prayer of the monastic community of which I am a
member. I have always questioned one of these changes--for
reasons which are relevant here. The end of the two major
126
hours of the daily round of communal prayer (Lauds and
Vespers) used to appear thus:
Our Father . . . but deliver us from e v il.
(Leader:) The Lord be with you.
(Choir:) And also with you.
(Leader:) Let us pray: (the oration proper to
the day was prayed)
(Choir: ) Amen.
(Leader:) The Lord be with you.
(Choir:) And also with you.
(Leader:) Let us bless the Lord.
(Choir:) Thanks be to God.
(Superior here gives a final blessing)
(Choir : ) Amen.
After the revision of Lauds and Vespers, the ending now
appears like this:
9
Our Father . . . but deliver us from e v il.
(Leader, after a brief pause, prays the oration
proper to the day)
(Choir: ) Amen.
(Leader:) Let us bless the Lord.
(Choir:) Thanks be to God.
(Superior here gives a final blessing)
(Choir:) Amen.
The reason for the elimination of the double "The Lord be
with you" and its response was that more greetings after we
had been praying together for twenty minutes seemed redun
dant. The reason for suppressing the "Let us pray" was that
we had already been praying (the Our Father), and so it did
not make sense to invite us to pray again. The problem here
is that a purely phatic purpose of language was not
127
recognized for what it was. The "Let us pray" was
apparently suppressed because it was seen as referen tial or
conative language and thus made no sense. It is also worth
mentioning here that the criterio n of "making sense" was
further emphasized by a radical change in body posture
during the closing prayers. During the Our Father and the
Oration the entire choir was bent low in a solemn bow (hands
on knees). These bows were eliminated in favor of standing
erect and facing the a lta r , with only the head bowed. The
sim plification of the body language was supported by simi
la rly rational reasons.
Examples of such simplification could be multiplied
by the score and the sum total te lls us a great deal about
our altered understanding of the purpose of litu rg ic a l
language and litu rg y in general. The broader consequences
of such changes are discussed in later chapters where
excessive emphasis on rational i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y is identified
as a weakness in litu rg ic a l reform.
In those instances when the celebrant is free to f o r
mulate his own texts, a clearer understanding of purpose
will guide him. The beginning of the Penitential Rite is
one such instance, where we frequently hear ad libitum texts
128
at variance with purpose. As an exhortation to confession
of sin, the formula provided is straightfoward and clear:
"As we prepare to celebrate the mystery of Christ's love,
let us call to mind our sins." Here, on the other hand, is
an example of spontaneous invitation which shows a lack of
understanding of the conative purpose associated with this
part of the mass.
We have all sinned, my b-rothers and
sisters, because we have been smug and compla
cent in our many comforts. W e have refused to
address ourselves to the hungry, the homeless,
the downtrodden and the outcast. Millions
starve every day while we stuff ourselves on
rich juicy food and good wines. Let us listen
to Isaiah this morning and see if we are
worthy of God's promise of forgiveness.
The purpose here is mixed. Perhaps it is meant to per
suade an audience to awareness of sin. But the dominant
purpose seems to be r e fe re n tia l, te llin g them about the
plight of the world, placing the blame on them, and
forgetting that they have assembled to celebrate redemption
and forgiveness.
Liturgical language which is characterized by strong
elements of didacticism and direct exhortation needs to exa
mine its purpose more carefully. Over the years since
Vatican II such language has had an effect on its audiences
129
— an.effect which is seen in altered views of the purpose of
litu rg y i t s e l f . I f the problem before the reforms was
ritualism and formalism, the problem today may be at the
other extreme, and the liturgy experienced as ideological
and u t i l i t a r i a n .
W e have assembled a number of c r it e r i a in this chapter
which can be applied to litu rg ic a l language to test its
s u i t a b i l i t y . W e have conceived of the language of liturgy
as a f i t container for the sacred action it contains, using
Burke's notion of the scene/act ra tio . W e have also seen in
Lanham's discussion of c la r ity that sim plicity or transpar
ency in prose is not what determines accessib ility; rather,
f a m il ia r i t y and what pleases us by its form as well as its
content are more r e a lis t ic guides toward success. The
application of speech act theory has reminded us of the per-
form ativity of words (as applied to the litu rg y by Ware,
Ladriere and others), demonstrating that words do far more
than serve as vehicles for concepts. Fin ally, the Jakobson
schema has enabled us to evaluate language in terms of its
purpose.
In the light of the c r i t e r i a , it is possible to f o r
mulate a working description of effective iturgical
130
discourse: language suitable for litu rg y w ill serve as a
f i t t i n g scenic background for sacred ritu a l action, having
the a b i l i t y to please in virtue of its fami 1i ar i ty and the
appeal of i t s content and form; i t w i11 accomp1i sh the pur-
pose for wh i ch it is formu1 at ed i n virtue of its f i d e l i t y to
the context in which it is employed.
Recalling the performative functions of litu rg ic a l
speech acts as developed by Ware and Ladridre, we can
see certain parallels between them and Jakobson's
outline of the purposes of language. There is no perfect
match here, but there is the kind of overlap which gives us
a direction toward a ho listic view of litu rg ic a l language
and prepares us for a profitable examination of the texts.
The "enabling" litu rg ic a l speech act that Ware speaks of is
related to the "existential induction" of Ladri^re and the
conative function of discourse specified by Jakobson: it
aims at effecting a change in those to whom it is addressed.
As Ware says, "enabling speech is the kind of speech that
heals, integrates, strengthens, invigorates, and over
comes. "91 The "relating" speech act establishes a r e l a
tionship and is clearly similar to the effect of litu rg ic a l
language as in stitu tin g a community, in Ladri^re's
131
discussion, and to the phatic purpose of Jakobson, by
establishing and maintaining contact. The poetic function
is reflected in Ware's "exalting" speech act and in what
Ladriere sees as the most fundamental view of the perfor-
mativity of litu rg ic a l language: present i f i c a t ion, in which
the message of litu rg y is i t s e l f the purpose of litu rg y.
The referen tial mode of discourse finds a place almost
exclusively in the homily or sermon and is seen in what Ware
calls "directing" speech acts. It would be unrealistic to
force these categories too r ig id ly , for human discourse
almost never belongs exclusively to one or the other.
It is already apparent that the language of litu rg y is
not seen primarily or even s ig n ific a n tly as r e fe re n tia l, an
important realization in light of the charges that have been
leveled at the reformed liturgy: verbalism, in t e 11ectua1ism
and secularism. It is also apparent at this point that the
dominant purpose of liturgy and its language is poetic--in
Jakobson's sense of the term. That is, the message i t s e lf
is the main purpose of liturgy: Christ has died, Christ is
risen, Christ w ill come again. Our ultimate question, then,
is "How well does the language of the mass serve this poetic
function?"
132
The c r it e r ia we have established will make evaluation
re la tiv e ly simple as we examine a somewhat longer stretch of
discourse, comparing the Collect in the old order of mass
with the Opening Prayer from the new order, both from the
Second Sunday of Easter.
COLLECT: 0 God, who by the. humility of Thy
Son hast raised up a fallen world, grant to
Thy f a ith fu l people abiding joy; that those
whom Thou hast delivered from the perils of
eternal death, Thou mayest cause to enjoy
endless happiness. Through our Lord Jesus
Christ Thy Son, who is God and liveth and
reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy
Ghost world without end. Amen.
OPENING PRAYER: God of mercy, you wash away
our sins in water, you give us new birth in
the S p ir i t , and redeem us in the blood of
Christ. As we celebrate Christ's resurrec
tion, increase our awareness of these bless
ings, and renew your g i f t of l i f e within us.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ,
your Son, who lives and reigns with you and
the Holy S p ir it , one God, for ever and ever.
Amen.
I t must be remembered f i r s t of all that the Collect would
not have been heard as it appears above; it would have been
heard in Latin. What is printed here is what was printed in
the missal which the attentive member of the assembly may
have read as the celebrant chanted or spoke it in Latin.
Nevertheless, it is a good representation of devotional and
litu rg ic a l language as it appeared in translations of the
133
nass te xt, as well as in religious lite r a tu r e and p a ra li-
*
turgical devotions in English which were common in the
pre-Vatican II era. In the new litu rg y , of course, the
worshipper would hear the Opening Prayer as it appears here.
The very f i r s t difference we notice is the very f i r s t
word ("0"). What is the effect on the listener when the
Divine Being's name is preceded by such an utterance? What
is the effect of such address when it is multiplied many
times over? Among other things, such language is indirect,
nuanced, and immediately id e n tifia b le as r e s p e c t f u l -
cognizant of the exalted state of the one addressed. Some
thing of the same indirection is implied in the Opening
Prayer when an attribute is added: "God £f mercy." Such is
not always the case, however, as can be seen in the Prayer
Over the Gifts of the same mass: "Lord, through faith and
baptism we have become a new creation. . . ."
What is the effect of the "0"? In that one syllable at
the beginning of the prayer we may detect an appropriate
attitude of submission and awe in which an awareness of "the
Wholly Other" is expressed. (The absence of the in te rje c
tion at the beginning of the Latin version of the prayer
does not weaken my contention here--since a "sacred tongue"
complemented the hieratic element a fort i or i . )
134
The next most obvious difference between the two prayers
is, of course, the exalted language of the Collect, contem-
Dorary idiom in the Opening Prayer. I am alluding to an old
issue here, for many of those involved in the translation of
the Latin into the vernacular have voiced misgivings about
the new litu rg ic a l language and its contemporaneity.
One of the more colorful objections to contemporary
English in the liturgy comes from Aidan Kavanagh, professor
of litu rg ie s in The Divinity School of Yale University:
I have . . . le ft unfinished the matter of
litu r g ic a l language because my concern so far
has been almost exclusively with translational
accuracy and almost not at all with that
language's adequacy for public litu rg ic a l use.
For this reason, litu rg ic a l English is pre
sently a pidgin form of the language
possessing all the s t y lis t ic f l a i r of a wet
potato chip. I must reinvent the rela tiv e
clause and learn once again how to use it in
conveying meanings that w ill go beyond what
the mere words of the text can say.92
Kavanagh presumes the necessity of s t y l is t i c f l a i r because
litu rg ic a l language must provide a setting for an action
which is more than quotidian r e a li t y . And his intuition
t e ll s him that the referent i a 1 purpose of a litu rg ic a l text
is not capable of carrying the fu ll weight of litu rg y 's
function.
His remark about the rela tiv e clause can be illu s tra te d
by comparing the syntax of the Collect and Opening Prayer
135
above. In the f i r s t , the rela tiv e clause attributed to God
the saving deeds in virtue of which we can presume to beg
his g ifts of "abiding joy" and "endless happiness." In the
second, there is no such connection: a string of statements
te llin g God what he does is followed by a request which does
not necessarily spring from a recognition of those actions.
The relationship between belief and petition is not as clear
in the syntactica11y simpler Opening Prayer as it is in the
syntactically more dense Collect.
Observe the relationships between elements when both
prayers are very simply diagrammed:
COLLECT:
1. 0 God,/, grant to Thy fa ith fu l people abiding joy;
2/ who/ hast raised up a fallen world
3/ by the humility of Thy Son
(that)
2/ those/Thou mayest cause to enjoy endless
happiness.
3/ whom Thou has delivered from the perils of
death
OPENING PRAYER:
1 God mercy, you wash away our sins in water,
you give us new birth in the S p ir it , and
1 (you) redeem us in the blood of Christ.
2 As we celebrate Christ's resurrection,
1 (we ask you to) increase our awareness of these
blessings, and
1 (we ask you to) renew your g i f t of l i f e within us.
These simplified diagrams (adapted from Christensen's Notes
Toward a New Rhetoric)93 demonstrate levels of generality
136
and the relationships which exist between elements of a
piece of discourse. Both Christensen and Lanham would hold
that the Collect is more interesting than the Opening
Prayer; it communicates the more subtle meaning it carries
precisely through the form it assumes--by making the r e l a
tionships between elements more clear than the simpler syn
tax of the Opening prayer does. Notice too that the Collect
does not need the "archaic" forms to retain its more poetic
sound and its "clearer" meaning in Richard Lanham's sense of
the word c la r it y :
0 God, who by the humility of your Son have
raised up a fallen world, grant to your f a i t h
ful people abiding joy; that those whom you
delivered from the perils of eternal death,
you may cause to enjoy endless happiness.
One final point with regard to these prayers: I have
not dealt with the closing doxology in either one. But
there is a difference, which, when multiplied many times
over in the ears of the congregation, can exert some effect.
The Collect doxology begins d ire c tly: "Through our Lord
Jesus Christ." The Opening prayer is more e x p lic it: "We
ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ." In both cases we
have a standard doxology with which nearly every prayer
addressed to God the Father is concluded. Since it is stan
T 3 7
dard, and therefore formulaic by nature, what is the com-
aarative effect of "we ask this" (e x p lic it statement) over
against "Through our Lord" ( imp 1ied formula)? I suggest that
in the context of the litu rg y, and when repeated over and
over, the less e x p lic it formula is the more enduring.
We are dealing here with poetic matters, with aesthetic
concerns, the kind of concerns which are appropriate to
discourse whose function is focussed on the message for its
own sake. Aidan Kavanagh senses the effect of neglecting
such matters in litu rg ic a l language:
Liturgy is r i t u a l , ritu a l is repetitious, and
repetition without cadence and rhythm is a
square wheel. I must do this [study the
language problem further] because language
without cadence and rhythm is like a human
body from which intelligence and imagination
have just l e f t . No ritu a l system in the
world, so far as I know, has ever couched its
language in a merely accurate vernacular;
after eleven years of using [the new
translations] , I think I now know why. To do
so is to t r i v i a l i z e - - n o t to secularize, but to
t r i v i a l i z e - - t h e object of worship.94
Richard Lanham is very much aware of purpose in language
when he critiques the more recent translations of the Bible.
In their concern for accuracy, he says, they seem to have
neglected a larger purpose: to delight the ear and s tir the
heart. The King James Bible (Authorized Version) is, by
138
Lanham's standard, clearer than the modern translations
simply because the prose style helps carry the meaning--not
at the expense of accuracy but in service to i t .
The Elizabethan translator has trie d , too,
to be clear, but natural to the kind of prose
he wrote came an effo rt to please, to please
by patterns of sound-arrangement and rhythm.
Such devices of the verbal surface may be
called ornament, but ornament integral to the
prose sense, sense as meaning, entire e ffe ct.
Is not part of c la r it y for a holy text its
memorability? And does this not inevitably
involve sound and rhythm? Church is one of
the few places le ft where prose is read
aloud. What we might profanely call the c i r
cumstances of performance demand a translation
f u ll of the sound and syntax patterns the King
James Version supplies naturally because, at
that time, prose was s t i l l regularly read
aloud. . . . The pious often object to reading
the Bible as lite r a tu r e , preferring to con
centrate on what is seriously called "the
message." Perhaps we are now in a position to
see how mistaken such an objection is. The
prose style creates the message, expressing,
not merely enhancing, i t . Scriptural prose
owes f i d e l i t y beyond the biblical narrative to
the whole of the religious experience.95
The point at stake is that a broader understanding of
purpose in litu rg ic a l and scriptural language will enable us
to compose new texts and translate old texts with greater
s e n s itiv ity and efficacy. It is heartening to see signs
that those responsible for our litu rg ic a l and scriptural
texts are moving beyond concerns for accuracy and c la r it y
- nrg
(in a narrow sense) to consider the overall purpose of
language used in worship. In effect they are recognizing a
scenic function of litu rg ic a l language, seeing the necessity
for closer relationships between exalted action and exalted
word.
The prescribed texts of the mass are largely scriptural
in th e ir origin and s p i r i t . What has been said of the
language of the Bible is equally relevant to the language of
litu rg y . W e can even assert that the a_d libitum or spon
taneous words which the new litu rg y makes room for must also
share in those qualities which characterize language with a
poetic purpose. Such an assertion implies an enormous
challenge to the one who is leader in the litu rg ic a l
s e ttin g --fo r he or she cannot serve the purpose of l i t u r g i
cal language without a highly developed s e n s itiv ity to the
effect of ritu a l upon the language used in its context.
Informal or colloquial expressions will inevitably f a ll
short of the mark--being an unsuitable background for the
action they accompany.
The vernacular is one of the greatest achievements of
the litu rg ic a l reform. Nevertheless, the distinction bet
ween the vernacular in the litu rg y and the vernacular of
140
everyday conversation must be maintained. I f we grant the
Drimacy of purpose in litu rg ic a l language to be poetic, the
need for such a distinction seems clear.
T4T
Chapter Four: The Rhetorical/Liturgical Stance
In the Introduction to the Constitution on the Sacred
L it urgy, the Fathers of the Council formulate a definition
of the Church:
I t is of the essence of the Church that she be
both human and divine, visible and yet i n v i
sibly equipped, eager to act and yet intent on
contemplation, present in this world and yet
not at home in i t ; and she is all these things
in such wise that in her the human is directed
and subordinated to the divine, the visible
likewise to the in vis ib le , action to con -
templation, and this present world to that
c ity yet to come, which we seek. (Art. 2)
It is important to note that immediately preceding this
d e fin itio n , the Constitution states:
. . . the litu rg y , . . . most of all in the
divine sacrifice of the eucharist, is the
outstanding means whereby the fa it h f u l may
express in their lives, and manifest to
others, the mystery of Christ and the real
nature of the true Church. (Art. 2)
And immediately following:
Wherefore the sacred Council judges that the
following principles concerning the promotion
and reform of the liturgy should be called to
mind, and that practical norms should be
established. (Art. 3)
142
There is recognition here that the Church sees i t s e l f in the
world from a particular point of view, a view which the
litu rg y is meant to r e f le c t. In this we see what is termed
a rhetorical stance, a way of seeing something in r e l a
tionship to situations and circumstances and adapting it
accordingly. To the extent that the old liturgy did not
e f fe c tiv e ly adapt i t s e l f to its audience, and accurately
re fle c t the true nature of the Church, it was to be changed.
Wayne Booth's concept of rhetorical stance can guide
litu r g ic a l reform. Booth is explicating rhetorical stance
in the following definition for the benefit of teachers of
w riting, but parallels to the situation before us here are
evident:
The common ingredient that I find in all of
the writing I admire--exc1uding for now
novels, plays, and poems--is something that I
shall reluctantly call the rhetorical stance,
a stance which depends on discovering and
maintaining a proper balance among three
elements: the available arguments about the
subject i t s e l f ; the interests and p e c u lia r i
ties of the audience; and the voice, the
implied character, of the speaker. I should
like to suggest that it is this balance, this
rhetorical stance, d i f f i c u l t as it is to
describe, that is our main goal as teachers of
r h e t o r ic . 96
First of a l l , the liturgy will appear as a formulation
of what God has done by intervening in human history in the
143
person, l i f e , death, resurrection of Christ. Second, the
litu rg y will address i t s e l f to contemporary men and women in
all their comp 1 e x ity --to ta 1 humanity with the touch of
redemption on them. Third, the litu rg y will reveal to the
world the character of the Church, the People of God, for
whom it is both mirror and lamp--a mirror to show them their
own r e fle c tio n , a lamp to show them the way.
Anyone who is fam iliar with classical rhetoric will
recognize in Booth's term the three touchstones of
A risto telian rhetoric: logos, pathos, and ethos. But there
are clear differences in the way these three terms interact
in the balance described by Booth as good rhetorical stance.
Ethos and pathos come together in what Booth has termed
"mutual inquiry," whereas in A risto tle ethos (the character
of the speaker) acts upon pathos (the character of the
audience) to impose new values, decisions, or conclusions,
ideally governed by logos (logical argument). Viewed in
ultimate terms, the litu rg y can be seen to conflate ethos
and pathos even more rad ic a lly , for the speaker and the
audience are often identified in litu rg y --a view which can
be seen even in the etymology of the word: 1eitourgia
( 1 aos, people + ergon, work), the people's service, the
l a i t y ' s work, what the worshippers do.
144
T ra d itio n a lly , A ris to tle 's emphasis on logos (substan
t ia l arguments which reasonable men must assent to) has been
taken for granted as the best rhetoric, the best means by
which audiences can be motivated to change their minds
and/or behavior. But with Perelman's New Rhetoric, the
rediscovery of Burke's " id e n tific a tio n and consubstantial-
i t y , " and the introduction of Rogerian argument by the
tagmemicists, the situation has changed. And what Booth
calls a "rhetoric of assent" does not take the p r io r ity of
logos for granted:
r
I t should be evident by now that for a rhe
toric of assent, these p r io r itie s are
questioned and perhaps in a sense even
reversed; ethical proof--the art of taking in
by contagion--now looks much more i m p o r t a n t . 97
I t is Booth's contention that modern thinking has placed toe
much emphasis on logical proof, to the neglect of ethical
proof--ethos, v a lid ity of argument on the basis of the
speaker's character--and pathos, v a lid it y or force of argu
ment based on what appeals to the audience's value system.
A rhetorical stance w ill try to achieve a balance. It woulc
be far from Booth to relegate substantive proof to oblivion,
as being an outmoded capitulation to nineteenth-century
positivism, or a surrender to inhumane science. Logos may
145
not be the most effective rhetorical item in every s itu a
tion but i t is nevertheless an important one. To dethrone
i t of its place of primacy is not to divest i t of all its
powe r .
Thus, we are not in danger of abusing man's rational
faculty simply because we take into account that he is mo re
than a "rational animal," or even because we recognize that
he is not p ri ma ri l.y such a being. As Booth says, all three
kinds of proof remain valuable in a rhetoric of assent:
To reconstruct our languages according to
a rhetoric of assent w ill be an immense task, as
the efforts of the last two decades [the 60's
and 70's] have shown. The reconstruction w ill
not, i f we do i t honestly, lead to any comfor
table set of rules for clear or straight thinking,
though some rules w ill s t i l l be useful for
limited cases. . . . I t w ill not even lead to
a reconstruction of a clear distinction among
the three kinds of classical proof. Emotional
and ethical proof w ill often turn out to be
"substantive," and logical proof useless and
misleading. But i f we recognize that the
distinctions w ill now be hazier than in any
trad ition al rhetoric, i t is s t i l l useful to
discuss our restored reasons under the three
traditional heads, substantive or lo g ic a l,
e th ic a l, and emotional.98
It is not d i f f i c u l t to understand how the reformed
litu rg y began to take on a r a t io n a lis tic character soon
a fte r the changes began. I t was necessary to explain to
people a great many changes and the reasons why they were
146
made. This involved, during litu rg ic a l celebrations, expo-
sitory excursions into history, theology, and rubrics--head>
stuff for the average church-goer. Add to this the gradual
disappearance of the "externals" (ceremonial, devotions,
vestments, gestures), and the combined effect could be aca
demic. Perhaps because it was generally understood that
changes involved adjustments and education into a new way of
doing things, strong negative reactions to the changes were
some time in coming. When they began to appear, the
response to them was more instruction, more commentary, more
promptings toward clear understanding of the changes. The
average worshipper was being asked to study the mass and
read the Bible, so that the meaning of the changes could
take root in his l i f e and bear f r u i t . These all seemed to
be reasonable arguments for a smoother adjustment and a
deeper f a it h . However, we can see now, by hindsight, that
the responses to objections were sometimes off target. Luis
Maldonado includes himself in an indictment against the
litu rg ic a l leaders who realized late that their attempts at
educating the people into the new litu rg y were shortsighted:
It is quite evident that the theme of subjec
t i v i t y is joined to that of religious
experience, at least within the litu rg ic a l
context. Also, it would include sentiment,
mysticism and, as well, the phenomenology of
a ll these r e a l i t i e s . Here we have a series of
147
issues which we lit u r g is t s , overly influenced
by a radical theology (polarizing faith and
relig io n ) and a concurrent pastoral approach,
had hastily overlooked or even eliminated.
Also, we must admit that these issues had been
neglected even in the conciliar reform. Now
they recur.
Consequently, the countercultures of contem
porary youth, the turnabout expressed in the
cultural revolution by the new generation in
recent years, the religious spring that
flourishes among many young people who search
sincerely for a rediscovery of monasticism,
contemplative mysticism, experiential prayer
and s p i r i t - f i l l e d enthusiasm--all of this has
come about to corroborate an already voiced
protest, arising years ago among a rtis ts ,
in te lle c tu a ls and writers, against the con
c i l i a r reform. The litu r g is ts had not re a lly
paid attention to this protest due to the fact
that they had precipitously identified it with
in t e g r a lis t, that is, reactionary movement."
Though Maldonado's description of the problem is
expressed in the past tense, the development of response to
the new litu rg y has not stopped. It has, though, taken some
new turns. Whether because of a kind of tired resignation,
or in a desperate attempt to wrest some emotional force fron
the litu rg y , we see in recent years the development of a
kind of celebration which is at variance with the purpose of
litu rg y , but which nevertheless seems to f u l f i l l needs on
the subjective level. It is with this current development
that I am primarily concerned, for it is a state of a ffa irs
148
brought about largely because of the " r a t io n a lis tic ,
cerebral i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y " which s t i l l characterizes the new
litu rg y on a wide scale.
The switch from a highly " u n in te llig ib le " Latin mass
with all its attendant array of quasi-magica1 (or at least
mystical) externals, to a litu rg y which is made in t e llig ib le
through simplified rites and elucidated texts, has been
followed in most recent times by celebrations which could be
described as orgies of f r a t e r n it y , or, more sedately, as the
"Jesus, our Brother" approach in reaction to "The Wholly
Other" approach. Neither is in fu ll accord with the
Church's d efinition of litu rg y , nor the aims of the con-
c i l i a r documents which began the reform.
A favorite distinction may express the problem of
extremes: we can see the litu rg y as having two dimensions,
the horizontal, which emphasizes the brotherhood and unity
of the worshippers, and the v e rtic a l, which emphasizes the
relationship between the community (as well as the
individual) and God. A litu rg y which does not achieve a
balance of these dimensions is at odds with what the Church
defines as litu rg y 's aim. The horizontal dimension is in
the ascendancy--and that may be accounted for by the com
149
bination of a react ion against the excesses of the old
litu rg y as well as the new. The old had become in d iv i
du alistic very often and did not make apparent the horizon
tal dimension of Christian b e lie f. The new, in i t s e l f , and
in the freedom of interpretation it suggests, leaves room
for excesses in this dimension and encourages them by de
emphasizing hieratic elements.
In this chapter we bring another term of the Pentad to
bear: agent. Since we are concerned prim arily with rhe
torical stance, that balanced. approach to any situation
which adapts to audience and circumstance, it becomes e vi
dent at once that we are dealing with something or someone
who assumes the rhetorical stance, i n i t i a t in g an exchange
and adapting the discourse so that the balance is main
tained. The point has already been made that the litu rg y is
the Church's most visible form of presence in the world. Ir
the words of the Constitution on the L itu rg y :
While the litu rg y daily builds up those who
are within into a holy temple of the Lord,
into a dwelling place for God in the S p ir it ,
to the mature measure of the fullness of
Christ, at the same time it marvellously
strengthens their power to preach Christ, and
thus shows forth the Church to those who are
outside as a sign lift e d up among the nations
under which the scattered children of God may
be gathered together until there is one sheep-
fold and one shepherd. (Art. 2)
150
The Church here states that the litu rg y is her agent. W e
have already seen that Christ himself, by his presence in
the liturgy, is considered, in a mysterious way, the agent
(Art. 7). But this identity need not be confusing, for we
can use the term to apply to eith er, albeit at different
levels. If litu rg y is agent, then the complexus of signs
and symbols it employs becomes its agency (the subject of
the next chapter). If liturgy is agency and Christ is
agent, then the ce1ebrant an d { in a sense,the worshippers
are co-agents with him.
We are concerned here with viewing the litu rg y i t s e l f as
agent under the heading of ethos. And we are concerned with
a problem in the reformed liturgy: the excessively rat i ona-
l i s t i c character it has assumed. To address the problem
under the heading of ethos implies that the litu rg y i t s e lf
must gain the trust and assent of those to whom the message
is addressed. The character of the speaker can never be
underestimated as an effective "proof"; but by the same
token it can never be divorced from the truth i t s e l f and
become jijn s jj the gauge for truth. When this happens, as it
has, both in the history of rhetoric and the history of
litu rg y , we find ourselves in the midst of bad rhetoric:
151
the attitude and postures of the speaker have so dominated
the situation that the message (logos) and the audience
(pathos) are given short s h r ift .
Liturgy as agent finds i t s e l f operating in a worid which
has undergone rapid and widespread change in recent years.
Con sequently, it has had to take a stand which could address
the changing world meaningfully and not be l e f t in the sha
dows of an e a rlie r age The litu rg y 's stance shows forth the
church's stance, and that stance will be adjusted as the
situation changes even while the purpose remains the same.
The changes in the. Church and the changes in the liturgy
were inevitable, simply because the world, the situation,
has changed. Not to adapt to an altered situation, not to
recognize i t , is fatal for an agent with a purpose.
Historical instances of change in the Church bear this out
and are more or less common knowledge. I would like to draw
attention to one instance in the history of change in the
Church, an instance which bears peculiar parallels to the
contemporary situation. Known as the Devotio Moderna, it
made its appearance in the late fourteenth century in the
Netherlands. H. A. Reinhold, in his book The Dynamics of
Litu rg y, describes the movement well:
Just before the simultaneous great d is in
tegration of religious unity in the
Reformation and the intellectu al discoveries
152
of the Renaissance, a religious revival took
place among the earnest-minded and sincere-
hearted people around the lower Rhine. It was
a great movement of religious r e b ir t h - - sparked
by laymen and supported by secular p rie sts--
known as the Devot i o Moderna, the "Modern
Devotion." I t should be better known and more
profoundly understood. . . .
I t almost seems possible to say that all
that is now recognized as being positive in
the Reformation--its call for reform, its con
cern with the religion of the heart and
conscience, its emphasis on interiorness and
sincerity, its recourse to the Scriptures, its
opposition to rote and dead formula in r e l i
gious practice--was foreshadowed in this
movement; when the catastrophe f i n a l l y broke
in 1517 it was only too easy for some of its
members to mistake the Reformers for God-sent
prophets; many of them followed them out of
the Church, misled by what was negative in the
Reformation--its open rebellion, its defiance
of authority, and its elevation of the in d iv i
dual to a position where he took supreme com
mand over his spiritu al a ffa irs in the name of
conscience. Although these elements were
absent from the Devot i o Moderna, they were
foreshadowed in its contempt for the i n t e l l e c
tual approach to the Faith, for theological
speculation and dogmatic preciseness sum
marized in sharply chiseled formulas and
d e f i n i t i o n s . 100
One of the most fam iliar names associated with the move
ment (besides offspring such as Nicholas of Cues, Erasmus of
Rotterdam, Ignatius of Loyola and John Calvin) was Thomas
Hemerken, known as Thomas a Kempis, the author of The
Imitation of Christ, a very popular devotional book until
153
recently. Today the book is out of fashion and has become
something of a classic example of non-1it u r g i c a 1 piety. It
is interesting in the present context prim arily as an
example of an e a rlie r protest against a faith which had
become a matter of the head to the neglect of the heart.
Reinhold observes:
When Thomas Hemerken writes that it is "better
to feel compunction than to know the accurate
d e finition of i t , " and when he does this in a
context that conveys the general impression
that this is more than an obvious truth, it
becomes evident that it is an attitude and a
pattern of a subtle a n ti- i n t e l 1ectualism
hovering over an age surfeited with a
decaying, late, and in fe rio r scholasticism.
Not only was there a general cry for reform of
the Church "in head and limbs," but there was
also a groan for r e l i e f from the verbalizings
of the later schoolmen who were no equals of
Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Duns Scotus.
In other words, their cry for the religion of
the heart and for the word of God without phi
losophy was a sound and genuine reaction to a
good thing overdone. And like all reactions,
it went so far in the opposite direction as to
become dangerous.
This danger became visible to the naked
eye in the Reformation, when Luther called
reason a harlot. No one among the followers
of the Devotio Moderna, expecially not their
greatest writer Thomas Hemerken, ever went so
fa r, but the trend was there, and with it
piety became no longer communal but almost
purely in d iv id u a l.1^1
We want to avoid the kind of imbalance about which
history can teach us such important lessons. Rhetoric is
154
the art of finding the available means of persuasion; rhe-
toric of assent is the art of avoiding preconceived notions
about what is persuasive, who is to be persuaded, or why
persuasion is to be engaged in. That is not all it is, but
certainly one of its most distinguishing features. In Wayne
Booth' s words:
I t is always good to maintain and improve the
quality of our symbolic exchange with our
fellow "se1ves to sharpen our symbolic
powers so that we can understand and be
understood, "taking in" other selves, and thus
expanding our own. What we say matters, and
it matters how we say i t . But the rules for
good discourse or clear thinking can no longer
be confined to logical prose--we must take in
the proofs of personal appeal and commitment,
of art and myth and r i t u a l . Though a whole
new e ffo rt to "purify the language of the
tribe" is implicit in the rhetoric of assent,
we cannot know in advance of exploration
whether the new vocabulary w ill include or
exclude the gestures of yoga and the
"nonsense" of Zen along with the propositiona1
analyses of a W it t g e n s t e i n .^ 2
Perhaps one reason the litu rg y seems too heady is that
it is in the process of defending i t s e l f against those who
feel it doesn't make sense in our modern s c ie n tific world.
Genuine litu rg y will never offer "practicable" answers
to society's problems. There are good reasons for litu rg y
doing what it has always done (mutat i s mutand i s ), and there
are good reasons for assenting to litu rg ic a l celebrations
155
which retain (or regain) their proper stance. Those reasons
are not opposed to intelligence or understanding, but they
are clearly not based on them, or even dependent on them.
Liturgy, like the faith it gives expression to (and gives
rise to, as well), is in constant search of understanding,
ever formulating ways to render the ineffable, to capture
the mystery in a symbol network, to address that elusive
thing, the human s p i r i t , in terms which only the s p irit can
perceive in their fullness. Liturgy, of its very nature,
shuns the obvious and the unsubtle, flees from the ordinary
syllogism (though it has its own kind of log ic), and above
a l l , refuses to be bound to time and space in any practical
way. The litu rg y , by d e fin itio n , is an encounter with the
d iv in e --a ll time, all space--and the transcendence sought in
such a d e finition requires something in addition to
understand i ng .
Not surprising1y, reactions to a litu rg y which is intent
on being i n t e l l i g i b l e are numerous and varied. They range
from what I have called orgies of f r a t e r n it y , in which the
participants celebrate the family of mankind with texts and
music centered on the accessib ility of God through my neigh
bor and works of mercy, to what might be called ritu a l
156
throwbacks, in which as many of the older elements as
possible (Gregorian Chant, Latin) are employed. Critics of
the f i r s t extreme charge such celebrations with being
excessively emotional, immature, and tawdry in their reduc
tion of God to "my Friend and my friends." C ritics of the
second label the participants with such epithets as " t r a d i
t i o n a l i s t , " "conservative," "romantic," or "s u p erficia lly
preoccupied with externals." It seems clear that both
express ions are in search of an element f e l t to be lacking
in the new litu rg y --o r in the old, for that matter. The
charge we are dealing with here (that the new liturgy is
r a t i o n a l is t i c ) is two-pronged. It says that the new r it e
has a certain characteristic which frustrates its fu ll per
suasive e ffe c t, and that it lacks something which would lenc
it more aesthetic appeal. W e can conclude in any case that
it lacks the balance which a better rhetorical stance could
bring to i t , and insure the necessary congruency between th€
purpose and its expression.
The Celebrant as Agent
Turning to the celebrant of the mass as agent enables us
to generate ratios which are immediately practical in our
ultimate determination of how best to assure the fulfillm ent
157
of litu rg y 's purpose. W e begin with a relevant quote from
Burke:
One discerns the workings of the act-
agent ratio in the statement of a former cabi
net member to the effect that "you can safely
lodge responsibi1ity with the President of the
United States," owing to "The tremendously
sobering influence of the Presidency on any
man, especially in foreign a f f a ir s ." Here,
the sheer nature of an off ice, or position, is
said to produce important modifications in a
man 1s character. Even a purely symbolic act,
such as the donning of p rie s tly vestments, is
often credited with such a resu lt. And I have
elsewhere quoted a remark by a p o litic a l
commentator: "There seems to be something
about the ju d ic ia l robes that not only hyp
notizes the beholder but transforms the
wearer."103
The priest who understands the quality of the act he is
about to perform, and is convinced of its worth, will be
affected accordingly in his role as agent. If he sees the
mass as prim arily a vehicle for teaching the truths of
f a it h , then he will be a preacher above all and will empha
size the didactic element in the litu rg y . If he sees the
mass as a celebration primarily of the family of man, a f r a
ternal banquet which is meant to strengthen the worshippers
for social action, his demeanor and his words w ill issue
from him in predictable ways. Obviously, my contention here
is that a clear understanding of what the mass is supposed
158
to do w ill enable the ce1ebrant-agent to act in accord with
litu rg y 's defined purpose. It is at this point that we
arrive at one of the major sources of d i f f i c u l t y with modern
litu rg y . The old litu rg y forestalled much of the d i f f ic u l t y
simply because it was so r ig id ly orchestrated in content,
gesture, and form. . The greater freedom allowed in the new
r i t e is po ten tia lly a powerful change for the better; but it
t
also has opened the door to variations by celebrants who
have an altered understanding of the mass and thereby in tro
duce a s p lit which frustrates its purpose. The most common
one is seen in litu rg ies which are characterized by heavy
didacticism, with an apparent goal of "teaching the people
how to love one another and make the world a better place."
This is not a bad or ignoble goal. It is, however, just
short of t r i v i a l - - i n the manner in which it is frequently
de1ivered- - when compared to the ultimate and exalted func
tion of litu rg ic a l worship: to offer praise and to reaffirrr
b e lie f.
In saying this I realize that I open myself to the
charge of having sp lit Christian fa ith and Christian good
works. I have not done so, however, except to maintain that
the litu rg y 's purpose is not to induce the worshipper to
159
action. It will do that of its nature if its true purpose
is achieved, but it w ill not bear the weight of an immediate
pragmatic or u t i l i t a r i a n emphasis.
In the litu rg y the Church's essence as both human and
divine is expressed, but, in the words of the Constitution,
"the human is directed and subordinated to the divine, the
visible likewise to the in v is ib le , action to contemplation,
and this present world to that c ity yet to come." ( A r t . 2)
160
Chapter Five: Liturgical Means: Verbal and Non-Verbal
An unfortunate dissociation has developed
in the "Western" Christian churches of the
Latin tra d itio n between an academic theology
spread by catechism teaching and a sentimental
or moralistic pietism which grew up alongside
a liturgy a r t i f i c a l l y preserved and restored
under the influence of the clergy. This split
has produced enormous d i f f ic u l t i e s which
threaten the success of the litu rg ic a l renewal
set in motion by Vatican I I .104
The "split" is everywhere- - and, happily, everywhere
acknowledged. Very often, however, the s p lit (in whatever
discipline or comunication situation it appears) is seen as
limited to the discipline or situation under discussion,
when it will be most profitab ly recognized as almost univer
sal in Western thought. The above quotation is taken from
an a r t ic le e ntitled "The Expression of the Faith in the
Eastern litu r g ie s ," by Ir§n£e-Henri Dalmais, a professor of
Oriental Liturgy. His comparison of the liturgy of East anc
West can serve as a springboard to this section of our
161
study, devoted as it is to an examination of the ways and
means of litu rg y , the "agency" in the Burkeian Pentad. W e
are concerned here with the means by which litu rg y expresses
i t s e l f - - n o t excluding the verbal means, but going beyond i t .
Dalmais sees particular value in examining the traditions of
Eastern Churches (as we 11 as the old Latin, Milanese,
Spanish, and Gallican l i t u r g ie s ) , because these formularies
seem less characterized by "cerebral i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y " and
may have a great deal to offer us in our concern with this
problem in the reformed litu rg y . Dalmais continues:
Their s p ir it is much more concrete and poetic,
and prefers to move in the sphere of the ima
gination. The litu rg ic a l celebration in these
traditions takes the form of a great community
game, activating all the powers of the imagi
nation and s e n s ib ility which can induce an
experience of the active presence of the
S p irit who comes to complete the mystery of
salvation in the Church. . . .
Apart from the arrangement of reading and the
singing of psalms and biblical chants which
form the indestructible framework of any
Christian litu r g ic a l expression, hymnography,
euchology and homiletics f e ll into extremely
f le x ib le rhythms which it was easy to
transpose into different languages. The
litu rg y of the hours and those of the
eucharistic and sacramental celebrations, and
all other religious functions, had only to
draw on th is , adapting the same common stock
according to their needs and to the individual
characteristics of th eir languages and
cultures. The result is litu rg ie s in the form
of lengthy poems in which singing, movements
and gestures, even religious art, especially
162
in the Byzantine t r a d it io n , play as important
a role as verbal expression. The l a t t e r , as
is s t i l l most often the case, may continue to
be formulated in an archaic language or even
in one no longer used; the need of translation
is hardly f e l t . The litu rg ic a l action is
lived; it is an experience as well as a pro
fession of f a it h . A few gestures, a few for-
mulas fa m ilia r to all are enough. In spite of
the frequent richness of the doctrinal content
of the texts, it is their character as w it
nesses to the faith of fhe church more than
th eir detailed meaning which is important in
the 1i t u r g y . 105
I have quoted Dalmais at length as a representative
description quite foreign to that which seems to express
i t s e l f in parish litu rg ie s throughout our country, except
those which have been branded extreme either because of the
excessive spontaneity or their excessive traditionalism .
Here we have an irony of the f i r s t order--at f i r s t glance.
But upon deeper examination, it becomes increasingly clear
that no irony, no contradiction pertains. What I have
described as "orgies of fra te rn ity " and " throwbacks" are
simply attempts to create a litu rg ic a l action which is
lived, which is "an experience as well as a profession of
f a it h ." The attempts do not always succeed because they are
in s u ff ic ie n t ly grounded in the purpose of the litu rg y .
I t w ill be remembered that the main thrust of this study
is to address the opposing reactions to litu r g ic a l change.
163
These can be seen in the quotation with which this chapter
begins. A growing desire for something surpassing rational
i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y in the litu rg y has taken us in several
directions, including an examination of a culture which is
t r a d it io n a lly viewed as opposite to our own: the Orient.
But even here the litu r g is ts are following a trend of
interest rather than exploring it as instigators.
Attraction to certain features of Eastern cultures is
discernible on a wide level and in dimensions other than
religion or b e lie f, and can be explained in part at least b>
a reaction against excessive positivism. One of the
greatest blessings of the litu rg ic a l reform (though it is
surely disguised) in the rea liza tion that the same kind of
positivism which religion might be expected to avoid had
le ft an easily discernible mark on the church, and on
litu rg y . Those who defend the old liturgy u n c ritic a lly f a il
to see that it too was fossilized by rationalism and
deadened by an overemphasis on one of the most grief pro
ducing formulations ever devised: ex. op ere operato. In
i t s e l f , the formula is harmless or even helpful serving as
an expression of the performative power of symbolic action.
When carried very fa r, however, it mutates very quickly
164
either into magic or a pseudo-logic, either of which is
dehumani zing.
Writing of various responses to a pro - tech no 1og y/anti-
poetic world, more than a decade before Vatican I I , Kenneth
Burke notes that the church
did not offer a very acceptable solution.
Those who attacked modern trends from the
s t r i c t l y orthodox position did of course have
an armory of resounding invective at their
disposal. They wrote "powerfully," they had
the dignified backing of an "impersonal"
cause, whereas many abler and f u l le r men were
forced into the weaker ta ctic a l positions of
subjectivism ("I personally do not like i t " ) ,
melancholy ("Oh, there were happy times"), and
irony ("Very well, go your way"). Yet on the
whole it was a losing fig h t. To begin with,
the tru ly suasive genius of religion had not
been in its invective at a l l , but in its ta c
tics of in g ra tia tio n , or inducement. The
champions of the One and Eternal Truth must
ever be accused of a certain self-indulgence,
for gratifying their resentments so
unrestrainedly. Bertrand Russell has noted an
element of malice in most modern defenders of
the Faith . 106
Burke is not e n tire ly free of the invective he denigra
tes in these further words--but there's no denying the v a l i
dity of his point:
. . . the s t r ic t dogmas of the Church retained
in a fossilized state an enormous super
structure of orientation which the shifts of
history had made either inapposite or down
right dangerous. And f i n a l l y , the True
Church was so in s titu tio n a lize d as to be
l i t t l e more than a hippopotamus feeding in the
miasmal swamps of time, while the deeply r e l i -
165
gious psychology of tragedy and devotion had
retired to the catacombs, le ft to the mournful
piety of "disorganized," "corrupt," and
"atheistic" poets.
The Churchmen became merely the feeblest,
most outlying group of scientists, vowed to an
enormous number of useless antics whereby they
might make the older ratio n aliza tio n look like
the newer one. They attempted to remould the
religious structure by the c r i t e r i a of ra tio n
a l i t y , or self-consistency, idealized by
science. They too became advocates of pro
gress, whereas the religious r a t io n a liz a
tion had been designed for anything but
progress. It had attempted to stab ilize a
given cooperative system. It was im p lic itly
ranged against progress, since progress
implied change. But so great had become the
prestige of progress, even Churchmen them
selves found it hard to believe that any
decent ratio n a liza tio n could have been deve
loped for the purpose of maintaining a status
quo.107
And, f i n a l l y , in a statement which describes the present
litu rg ic a l scene with eerie accuracy, and prepares for his
treatment of a more viable a lte rn a tiv e , Burke says:
The prestige of progress, however, must
necessarily diminish. A point of view
involves progress until it has been substan
tia te d , whereupon the desire is for s t a b i l i z a
tion, and the magic lure of progress as a
slogan is e n d e d . 100
The magic lure of litu rg ic a l change is ended for many as
well. Looking backward to an age when things at least
seemed more stable, the defenders of the old ways may be
166
deceived into finding a simplistic solution in a return.
Those who had looked forward to a Golden Age of revival
through the accomplishments of the aims of Vatican I I , the
defenders of the new ways, now realize that litu rg y does not
automatically become vibrant when it is understood, nor does
r itu a l a c tiv it y become efficacious by being simplified or
clarified--much less "purified." In fa ct, there is reason
for believing that a sim plification as far as ritu a l is con
cerned may have the insidious effect of rendering the par
ticipants incapable of placing much credence in its
power--especially when the ominipresence of hard science
tends to diminish such credence further.
Burke favors a humanistic approach in any attempt to
persuade, or to counteract the fa ulty attempts of magic,
relig io n , and science to ra tio n a liz e , and to a l t e r , human
behavior:
A corrective ra tio n a liza tio n must cer
ta in ly move in the direction of the anthropo
morphic or humanistic or poetic, since this is
the aspect of culture which the s c ie n tific
c r i t e r i a , with their emphasis upon dominance
rather than upon inducement, have tended to
eliminate or minimize. . . .
After a l l , the devices of poetry are close
to the spontaneous genius of man: in framing
a corrective philosophy with poetic standards,
we should have a point of reference which was
in turn "biologically" grounded.109
167
We should also have a point of reference, in poetry,
which was "theologically" grounded, given the fundamental
Christian b elief in the Incarnation--though such a statement
w ill be accepted only if our d efin itio n of poetry is as
broad as the one Burke here specifies:
The corrective of the s c ie n tific r a t io n a liz a
tion would seem necessar'ily to be a rat i ona 1 e
of a rt--n o t however, a performer's art, not a
s p e c ia lis t's art for some to produce and many
to observe, but an art in its widest aspects,
an art of 1 i vi ng . HO
Aesthetic as the Agency in Liturgy
With all the above as foundation, I now come to the
major assertion about the ways and means (the agency) of
litu rg y . The poetic, the a r t i s t i c , the value-laden forms of
expression through sign, symbol, and gesture are primary.
I t is not untrue to say that the litu rg y is primarily a non
verbal act. It cannot do without words, of course, but
neither can it accomplish its purpose with words alone, or
even primarily with words. In the light of such an asser
tion, we must modify our formulation of the d i f f i c u l t i e s
with the reformed litu rg y . Rather than saying that the
m ultiplication of words was accompan i ed by a diminution of
the non-verbal elements, we must now recognize that the
emphasis on words has led to the neglect of non-verbal
168
r itu a l a c tiv it y . Further, we can see that the excessive
emphasis on the word and the neglect of the non-verbal has
brought about the secularization'of the litu r g y ,c o n c e a lin g
an essential part of its nature as gratuitous celebration,
and overemphasizing the prophetic element to the point where
it has become a means to an end. Thus conflated, the
weakness of the new litu rg y is explained again by the now
fa m iliar Burkean principle: "Hypertrophy of information
leads to atrophy of form." The remainder of this chapter
concerns i t s e l f with responses to such a state of a f fa ir s .
I want f i r s t to point out what seems to me a striking
p a r a lle l, in the work of Mary Douglas, to the situation
being dealt with here. In Natural Symbols, she writes:
Let me. . . signpost three phases in the move
away from ritualism . F ir s t, there is the con
tempt of external ritu a l forms; second, there
is the private internalizing of religious
experience; third there is the move to huma
nist philanthropy. When the third stage is
under way, the symbolic l i f e of the s p ir it is
finished. For each of these stages social
determinants can be i d e n t i f i e d . H 1
I t is not d i f f i c u l t to see how Douglas' order of things
matches the problems with the new litu rg y to a remarkable
degree. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy cannot be
said to display a contempt for external r itu a l forms, but it
169
is very clear that the sim plification it encouraged led to
something like contempt. Indeed, expressions of ridicule
are not uncommonly directed at those who show a p ro c liv ity
for external signs of devotion which used to be quite common
(folded hands, bowed head, kneeling to receive communion,
profound bows, and so fo r th ). These "romantics" are
encouraged to penetrate more deeply into the meaning of
their f a i t h - - t o "intern alize their religious experience."
The contempt extends also to other externals, such as vest
ments, candles, rosaries, and religious garb. These are
termed "mere" externals, trappings of "religion" as opposed
to " fa ith ." And, again, the emphasis on words at the
expense of signs encourages understanding--a kind of in t e r
nalization . F in ally , the new litu rg y 's secular sense and
prophetic character has augmented the tendency to use it as
a platform for evangelization and spreading the "social
gospel." The mass is frequently seen to be a program for
spurring the participants to social action--"humanist
phi1 ant ropy." All three stages of Douglas' sequence are
illu s tra te d here, and have taken th e ir to ll on the symbolic
l i f e of the s p i r i t . External ritu al forms cannot be
underestimated with regard to the power they carry, nor can
we underestimate the loss which follows their demise.
170
Given the nature of the mass as ritu a l action, the func
tion of language as scene- and the constraints which both
place on the agents (the litu rg y i t s e l f , the ministers, or
the congregation), it is not so d i f f i c u l t to determine the
agency (the means-by-which) most effective in achieving the
purpose inherent in each component and implied by all the
ratios among the components. A gratuitous ritu a l act does
not clothe i t s e l f in "everyday" language. Those who perforrr
such an act do not behave in "everyday" fashion, nor are the
means by which they enact the r itu a l characterized by the
kind of means they use to accomplish more "useful" ends.
I f , however, the nature and purpose of litu rg y is misun
derstood, a chain of react ions beg ins which ultimately
results in a frustration of that purpose at every level.
The final result is that the message given out is far d i f
ferent from the one intended by the church.
How can litu rg y be misunderstood when the church's sta
tements about it are so consistent and so clear? The very
question (asked frequently by experts on opposing sides)
implies something of its own answer. The problem lies not
within litu rg y i t s e l f but within our misunderstanding,
within us, and the effects upon litu rg ic a l celebrations
171
which our misunderstandings have. The place to begin our
search for effective means by which to enact litu rg y is
within the participants themselves and not only in the means
they employ or do not employ. Actually, we have been doing
this from the beginning of this study, but now it becomes
more obvious--and more urgent.
I.A. Richards recommends that we can account for under
standing and misunderstanding only if we are w illing to
admit from the beginning that meaning does not exist in
words, but in those who respond to words--and he would
easily include non-verbal language in his r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . ^ ^
The f i r s t consequence of such a position is that ambiguity
(the bane of logicians) is'not only common, it is inevitable
and enriching. This in turn is so because all language is
v i t a l l y metaphoric, that is, metaphor is the body and soul
of language, not mere decoration within language and not
merely a s t y l is t i c device to be used for ornamental pur
poses. Thought too is metaphorical, and metaphor is more
accurately understood as thoughts working together than as a
matter of words. Thinking proceeds by making comparisons:
we take an idea and place it alongside another idea and in
the process of comparison arrive at a completely new idea,
172
which would not have been accessible without the help of the
metaphorical process.
The effect of making metaphor so central to the com
munication process is that we realize how very indistinct
the line between manner and matter tru ly is. Further im pli
cations for the fact/value s p lit are radical. The classic
definition of a sacrament in the catechism would be this:
an outward sign of an inward r e a lit y , or an efficacious sigr
which effects what it s ig n ifies . Here we have a good
example of th’e kind of identity between sign and thing
signified which disturbs logicians (and the metaphorically
d isin clin ed). Those who deal with such d i f f i c u l t i e s by
dismissing them as "mere" metaphors, or "mere" symbols,
might also find it easy to speak of "mere" rhetoric and
"mere" r i t u a l .
Paul Ricoeur, whose expertise lies in the areas of phe
nomenology, hermeneutics, and the philosophy of language,
speaks of the "somewhat boundless f ie ld of metaphor
th e o ry ."H 3 But it is probably in studies of metaphor, and
our understanding or misunderstanding of i t , t h a t the most
crucial insights into the efficacy of ritu a l signs and sym-
bols can be gained. At least one l it u r g i s t has broken into
173
the metaphor fie ld by suggesting that litu rg y can be p r o f i
tably seen j^s metaphor. The thesis of his study is that
the celebration of the litu rg y is a com
munications event, but. . . it is faced with
the problem of the communication process being
understood in our culture almost exclusively
as a process of conveying information. The
study of metaphor, however, reveals the inade
quacy of such an understanding and can help us
"relearn a forgotten way of doing things and
recapture lost a ttitud es." If that happens,
the reform of the rites w ill then appear
simply as a necessary prelude to the more
significant phase of litu rg ic a l renewal, that
of a renewed understanding of the language of
the r i t e and a recovery of its communicative
p o ten tial. . . . The problem is that most
people "read" the litu rg y in terms of
something educational and purposeful, whereas
the task of the li t u r g is t is to help them
enter into it in such a way that they discover
it as an encounter with mystery, generating
both insight and commi tment.
The older theories of metaphor were reflected in older ways
of explaining the sacraments and the mass. The major expla
nation of the litu rg y was in terms of the e_x opere operato
miracle on the a lta r whereby the p rie st's pronouncing of the
"words of in s titu tio n " (Hoc est en i m corpus me urn and Hie es t
en im ca1i x sanqui n i s me i s) "confected" the sacred species
(changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of
C h rist). All of this was given with l i t t l e regard to the
elaborate ceremonial which surrounded such an action,
174
lending it the very aura of mystery which affected the w it
nesses most deeply whether or not they understood the rather
technical explanation of transubstantiation . And the same
was true of the other sacraments. As Searle observes:
The preoccupation with causality rather than
s ig n ific a tio n --th e shift from seeing the
sacraments as communications events to seeing
them as causal operations--meant that the
actual litu rg ic a l performance was not taken
seriously as a source of understanding.
Instead, the Thomistic axiom, si gnifi cando
causant, was e ffe c tiv e ly cut in two and the
f i r s t half promptly forgotten as causality was
discussed without reference to the meaning
inherent in the litu rg ic a l structure as a
wh o 1 e. . .
In other words, the metaphor could be
translated and, as the theologians showed in
their commentaries, e f fe c tiv e ly dispensed with
in favor of more conceptual statements.
Searle goes on to discuss the recent studies in metaphor
which account for a new way of looking at language in
general and r itu a l forms of communication in p a rtic u la r. He
points out that not only smaller units of discourse can be
metaphorical (words, sentences, poems), but whole works,
series of acts, human behavior and thought generally. In so
doing he has found I. A. Richards' theory of "context" in
other w riters. Simply stated, this theory sees that meaning
is derived from context and does not exist out of context.
175
Meaning is "the delegated efficacy of signs by which they
bring together into new unities the abstracts, or aspects,
which are the missing parts of their various contexts. "116
I t is this contextual theory which enables us to separate
refe re n tia l functions of language from emotive functions,
and Richards would insist that a microscopic analysis of
language must prevail before macroscopic views can be
employed for rhetorical purposes. Searle appears to leap
over the function of metaphor in smaller units of discourse
within litu rg y , but we may presume he does so for the sake
of his larger purpose. That purpose is to demonstrate that
a deeper appreciation of metaphor will bring us to a deeper
appreciation and celebration of the litu rg y . I sense a ten
dency in this formula to v a c illa te between the "learning"
and the "doing," as though the author is not quite certain
which should come f i r s t - - o r whether learning and doing
should occur concomitantly. He is talking about the
reformed litu rg y when he says, "Thus the 1iturgy contains a
whole plethora of images, playing off one another, all
pointing beyond their l i t e r a l meaning to something else."
This surely is not always how the litu rg y is perce i ved by
participants in our day--for it is often not ce1ebrated as
176
the "whole plethora of images" which indeed it is. Searle
recognizes the problems raised by a too analytical approach
to litu rg y when he says:
The temptation to explain these images--
whether they be scriptural images or l i t u r g i
cal gestures--is something that has to be
resisted: it is not explanation we need, but
contemplation; not ideas’ but disclosures. For
the language of the r it e is never a statement
about what it contains, so much as the coming
to light of the mystery i t s e l f . What this
mystery is in its fullness can only be
explored by playing with the images until it
is glimpsed, acknowledged and surrendered
I have presumed that litu rg ic a l discourse (both verbal
and non-verbal) belongs in the realm of the poetic. I have
also implied that Burke's call for a rationale of art as a
corrective o f - s c ie n t if ic ‘ra tio n a liza tio n is relevant to
discussions of litu rg ic a l renewal, making it clear that
ritu a l can be most p ro fitab ly understood as a form of art,
in the widest aspect of that term. Viewed from this aspect
we can apply to litu rg y many of the same c r i t i e r i a we apply
to any work of art to determine its efficacy, and even more,
to determine its purpose. Emile Durkheim, in his seminal
work Elementary Forms of the Religious L i f e , discusses the
relationship between ritu a l and art in a way which contem
porary litu rg y may consider with p r o f it .
177
[R]eligion would not be i t s e l f if it did not
give some place to the free combinations of
thought and a c tiv it y , to play, to art, to all
that recreates the s p ir it that has been
fatigued by the too great slavishness of daily
work: the very same causes which called it
into existence make it a necessity. Art is
not merely an external ornament with which the
cult has adorned i t s e l f 'in order to dissimu
late certain of its features which may be too
austere or too rude; but rather, in i t s e l f ,
the cult is something aesthetic. Owing to the
well-known connection wh A ch mytho1ogy has with
poetry, some have wished to exclude the former
from re lig io n ; the truth is that there is a
poetry inherent in all r e l i g i o n . ! ^
Remembering that the main thrust of this chapter is to
address the ways and means (agency) by which liturgy
achieves its purpose, we can draw certain conclusions from
what has been said above. Reasons have been offered in
defense of non-rational and non-literal readings of l i t u r g i
cal discourse, and certain principles have been invoked in
order to defend the experiential aspects of a modern litu rg y
which has become overly concerned with cerebral and rationa
l i s t i c i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y . The discussion has been audience
centered insofar as the emphasis has been placed on how the
litu rg y is perceived by the average layperson. Efforts to
simplify the ritu a l of the mass have not always been met
with enthusiasm. And, very often, the enthusiasm which has
178
embraced the changes appears in the form of a l i t e r a l
interpretation of litu rg y which reduces it to more or less
structured ways in which to recall the historical act ions of
Christ, thereby missing, the broader purpose of litu rg y as a
ritu a l representation and continuation of the cosmic redemp-
tive plan--the source and summit of the entire l i f e of the
Church. Sim plification processes have stripped the liturgy
of some of the means by which it may express i t s e l f .
Returning to Mark Searle's discussion of litu rg y as
metaphor, we find these words:
The language of the r i t e . . . is not
only the language of the spoken words but also
the language of actions undertaken, where the
performative word is accompanied by the s ig n i
ficant gesture, each a commentary upon the
other, each sustaining the other. To us who
have become d istru stful of the word, the
litu rg y offers the opportunity to rediscover
its power by submitting to the gesture as
well: W e kneel to confess, stand to salute
and to praise; we bow, we beat the breast, we
raise our hands, we genuflect, we make the
sign of the Cross--and in all this we discover
the meaning of the r i t e by putting ourselves
as best we can into what we are doing. In all
these ways and more, the liturgy encourages us
to try on the metaphor; not just to stand
there, but to body it fo r th .^ 20
And, a l i t t l e la te r, Searle makes the point that litu rg ic a l
word and action must be performed in such a way that they
are immediately seen to be s pec ific ally r itu a l words and
act ions:
179
Thus to speak of god as an a ll-lo v in g
Father or an all-powerful Savior is to deny
any real continuity between God and any human
experience of the role of father or savior.
In this way, through simultaneous assertion
and denial, through the juxtaposition of claim
and disclaimer, the transcendence of the
r e a l i t y of which we speak is safeguarded. In
Christian r i t u a l , a sim ilarly important func
tion is played by the formalization of human
a c tiv it ie s into ceremonial acts. Familiar
gestures of greeting, embracing, sharing
bread, drinking together, bathing and even of
gathering together are carried out in such a
way as to put them at least one remove from
th e ir usual form. This distancing from the
purely functional is what lends these actions
th e ir metaphorical tension, so that we are
prompted to attend more closely and to ask
a fter the meaning of what is done. As Pierre
Colin remarks: " It is the very solemnity of
the litu rg ic a l gesture which prompts us to
look for the fullness of its meaning beyond
its immediate significance--and that is why it
is important to maintain this so 1emnity."121
Coming from an a n t i - r i t u a l stance, experimenters have
(often with the best of intentions, no doubt) seen the
secret of a re v ita lize d litu rg y in ac c e ssib ility , i n t e l l i g i
b i l i t y , and comprehension. But none of these has resulted
in a litu rg y which is v ita l and persuasive, though they are
good things in themselves. Experimentation which, on the
other hand, did not stem from saying "nay" to r i t u a l , but
rather found its drive in an assent to the gratuitous nature
180
of litu rg ic a l a c tiv it y has met with greater success. Wayne
Booth's "rhetoric of assent" comes immediately to mind,
recalling the fact/value split which accounts for the
weakness in contemporary litu rg y . If we can assent to the
value of litu rg y apart from u t i l i t a r i a n or demonstrable
proof, the most efficacious means for enacting r itu a l will
occur to us much more readily.
181
Chapter Six: The Value of Liturgy as Restricted Code
A r i t u a l , repeated throughout a whole l i f e ,
becomes the cord that threads together all
past experiences, unifies them with both the
present and the future of the person. Think
of the yearly, festivals attended by peoples of
all ages. Through these celebrations infancy,
the youthful years, the presence of already
dead loved ones--all these experiences are
relived. These celebrations penetrate the
most inaccessible depths of the psyche with
greater strength than any psycho an a 1y s is . For
this reason--though not e x p lic ity aware of it
--so many non-practicing Christians, even
unbelievers, flock to these masses. It is
there they find a pleasant therapeutic, a
unifying catharsis that purifies their inmost
self.
When the r it e changes or disappears that
thread is broken, the person is lost, pruned
from the trunk of its personality. Thus we
see how throughout history ritu a l changes have
produced schisms and i n s u r r e c t i o n s . 122
Maldonado is here making e x p lic it what is implied
throughout his work: the value of ritu a l must be regained
and demonstrated in this s c ie n tific age of ours. It is
obvious that this present study has espoused a similar posi-
182
tion. And yet it strikes one as strange that a value which
so many hold to be so crucial for man's l i f e should have to
be defended. Why is it not obvious to man himself that
ritu a l is at the root of his experience? Are the forces of
technology and science so strong that they o b lite ra te man's
innate religious sense? Or do they squelch the expression
of it in r itu a l activity? Aidan Kavanagh ad dresses such
questions by asserting that the ritu al nature of man simply
lies so deeply within him that it can go unrecognized or
unperceived for what it tru ly is:
Not only is ritu a l habit forming, it is
power laden. W e are also immersed in i t - - t o
such an extent, indeed, that it takes an ex-
traordinary degree of perception even to note
its presence, much less to analyze its
influences on us. This presence and its
effects are nonetheless real, and they are not
confined to stadiums on Saturday afternoons,
to m ilita ry parades, to inaugurations, or to
Sunday services in Church. Even less is
r itu a l an arcane phenomenon that survives only
in societies we call " p r im it iv e ."123
Those who do systematic studies of "primitive" societies
are among the f i r s t to identify the existence and importance
of ritu a l a c tiv it y in more developed cultures. And it is
from their findings that some of the most compelling ev i
dence in support of ritu a l awareness may be found. In this
concluding section of our study of litu rg y I would like to
183
draw on the work of two such investigators: Mary Douglas
and Victor Turner, whose work has the advantage for our pre
sent purpose of including within it direct application to
the situation now obtaining in the Christian Churches which
are involved in a litu rg ic a l renewal unprecedented since the
Protestant Reformation.
I have not departed from the organizational schema and
heuristic which has controlled this study from the
beginning, for in discussing the value of liturgy and its
essentially ritu a l character I am guided by the sixth term
in the Burkean Pent ad- - which transforms it into a hexad:
a ttitu d e. Agency asks the question "By what means?"
Attitude refines the question by asking "In what manner?"
My suggestion is that the most efficacious litu rg y will be
celebrated in a d is tin c tly ritu a l manner--and our attitude
toward litu rg y in general can best be described as one very
much aware of its ritu a l character.
Mary Douglas' primary concern in Natura1 Symbo1s is to
demonstrate the universality of what she calls "ritualism ,"
and to assert the necessity of a more careful analysis of
its power and force. Her own attitude becomes clear in the
opening pages of her book where she addresses the current
situation in the Roman Catholic litu rg ic a l renewal:
184
When I ask my clerical friends why the new
forms are held superior, I am answered by a
Teilhardist evolutionism which assumes that a
rat i onal, verba 11 y e x p lic it , personal commit
ment to God is self-e v ide n tly more evolved and
better than, its alleged contrary, formal,
r i t u a l i s t i c conformity. Questioning th is , I
am told that ritu a l conformity is not a valid
form of personal commitment and is not com
patible with the fu ll development of the
personality; also that the replacement of
r itu a l conformity with rational commitment
will give greater meaning to the lives of
Christians. Furthermore if Christian ity is to
be saved for future generations, ritualism
must be rooted out, as i f it were a weed
choking the l i f e of the s p i r i t . W e find in
all this a mood which closely parallels the
a n t i - r i t u a l ism which has inspired so many
evangelical sects. There is no need to go
back to the Reformation to recognize the wave
on which these modern Catholics are rather
i ncongruous ly ri ding. 12.4
Mary Douglas stands clearly on the side of ritualism ,
and her book is an attempt to demonstrate that ritu a l man is
socially determined in such a way that a tight social group
expresses i t s e l f r i t u a l i s t i c a l l y , whereas ritualism dimi
nishes in direct proportion to the disintegration of com-
mun i t as or group id e n tity . Her summary view is that
attitudes toward ritu a l "are not the same the world over and
that interest in magical efficacy varies with the strength
of the social t ie s . "125 Moreover, her book stands as a call
185
to a return to more positive attitudes toward ritu a l simply
because of the d ialectic which exists between ritu a l and
group id e n tity --a necessary phenomenon for integrated and
wholesome human existence. The model employed in her thesis
is taken from linq uistic analysis, s p e c ific a lly the theory
of Basil Bernstein, who distinguishes two categories of
speech: the restricted code and the elaborated code.
The f i r s t arises in a small-scale, very local
social situation in which the speakers all
have access to the same fundamental
assumptions; in this category every utterance
is pressed into service to affirm the social
order. Speech in this case exercises a
solidarity-m aintaining function closely com
parable to religion as Durkheim saw it func
tioning in primitive society. The second
category of speech distinguished by Bernstein
is employed in social situations where the
speakers do not accept or necessarily know one
another's fundamental assumptions. Speech has
then the primary function of making e x p lic it
unique individual perceptions, and bridging
differen t i n i t i a l assumptions.126
The d ifferent kinds of speech are learned in different
social settings, each having a distinct effect on the way
the learner views his world. The result of the restricted
code is that the language user views himself in relation to
the social milieu in a "positional" way--that is, he defines
himself in part at least in terms of his relationship with
the community. The elaborated code i n s t i l l s a much more
186
private and internal kind of self-concept in which the user
views his relationship to the surrounding community in a
much more personal way--basing his choices and decisions on
personal feeling rather than on his relationship to the
social structure. Douglas feels that the two very different
ways of viewing oneself and one's environment (based on
attitudes developed in the diverse speech codes) account for
a move from ritu a l (the restricted code/positional effect)
to ethics (the elaborated code/personal e f f e c t ) . Douglas'
application of Bernstein's thesis is tenuous and admits the
danger of simplistic interpretation. Nevertheless, as a
start toward understanding an a n t i - r i t u a l i s t stance, it has
promise and merit.
At f i r s t sight all ritu a l would seem to be a
form of restricted code. It is a form of ver
bal utterance whose meanings are largely
im p lic it; many of them are carried along stan
dardized non-verbal channels. Indeed, since
Malinowski no one has thought to interpret the
language of magic apart from the symbolic
actions and apart from the whole social con
text . Ritual is generally highly coded. . . .
Obviously there are technical d i f f ic u l t i e s in
applying this comparison of speech and ritu a l
forms. However, at f i r s t glance we seem to
have a ready-made solution to our opening
question. The causes of a n t i - r i t u a 1ism today
in middle-class European and American com
munities would appear to be a predictable
result of a process in which the child never
internalizes a pattern of social statuses and
never experiences authoritative control which
exalts the self-evident property of a social
187
system to command obedience. Symbols of s o l i
darity and hierarchy have not been part of his
education. Consequently a form of aesthetic
experience is closed to him.127
I t is at f i r s t hearing very odd to hear Douglas imply
that the restricted code liberates the user. But in a very
real sense this is true, for the environment which gives
rise to a restricted code also seems to emancipate the user
from himself and invest him with all the values contingent
upon commun i t a s . Thus it addresses the problem of aliena
tion and asserts the value of ritu a l as a formative force
for personal wholeness.
Though the theory is tentative, its implications are
intriguing for one who has been in touch with the litu rg ic a
situation during the time since Vatican I I . One gets the
sense that when we examine the entire situation on such
levels as Douglas here does, we are nearer the heart of the
matter. I f it is true that in Western society we are deve
loping into a people who relate to the milieu from a
"personal" more than a "positional" stance, then it is
understandable that the idea of communitas w ill change from
feelings of s o lid a rity , pattern, structure, and group
identity--and w ill tend toward in d iv id u a lity , introspection
and internal patterns or c r it e r ia rather than external
188
structures. Douglas would say that this accounts for the
f lig h t from ritualism and the tendency toward a purely e t h i
cal relig io n .
Recalling what has been said in e a rlie r chapters about
litu rg ic a l celebrations which are characterized by an empha-
sis on current issues and the horizontal dimension of r e l i
gion, it seems safe to conclude that the remedies for the
i l l s of reformed litu rg y will be found much more deeply than
in altered rubrics. Indeed, as has been observed more than
once, the solution to current litu rg ic a l problems should be
sought in those who assemble for worship as much as in the
text and actions employed in such gatherings. An altered
attitude toward ritu a l is surely necessary if litu rg y is to
f u l f i l l its purpose. But an altered attitude toward ritu a l
w ill perhaps have to be preceded by an altered view of one
self in relation to the social environment of which r e l i
gious ritu a l is a part. The 1 itu rg ic a 1/ r i t u a 1 stance can
and must continue to insist on its crucial role in the l i f e
of human beings--but it will do so with greater effect when
it takes into account the fact that it stands today as
something of a sign of contradiction, asserting a set of
values which are very often at variance with "givens"
T89
inculcated by an a n t i- r it u a l 1st society. There is surely
nothing new about th is , insofar as it is a sign of contra
diction in it ia te d by the god-man who is credited with i n s t i
tuting the ritu a l forms we are now considering here. But
there is something new in our understanding of the depth of
r i t u a l i s t i c or a n t i- r i t u a 1is tic positions and therein lies
our best hope of success in addressing homo religiosus in
the most meaningful way.
The complexity of the situation is daunting, but it is
also exciting. Douglas concludes her study by noting some
of the ironies which have been alluded to e a rlie r in these
pages--the irony of a return on the part of the younger
generation to ritu a l forms outside the traditions in which
many of them were reared--and the further irony of apparent
neglect of ritu a l forms by ecclesiastical authorities at a
time when th e ir value is being rediscovered:
The very religious themes which repelled r a d i
cals of half a century ago are now being
seized upon in drama, fic tio n and visual art
and woven into a secular symbolic system. W e
may well ask why the now elderly radicals
rejected religious themes of renunciation,
why they disdained the unabashed sexual ima
gery of the mystics and the completely
counter-rational doctrine of the resurrection
of the body, and why the young radicals of
today express contempt for the physical body,
read the mystics and cultivate non-ration-
a l i t y . The difference surely lies in the
respective attitudes to p o litic a l power, the
190
former seeking and the la tte r rejecting i t .
The Churches could worry that their clothes
are being stolen while they bathe in a stream
of ethical s e n s itiv ity . For the current
dichotomy of s p ir it and matter is an assertion
of s piritu a l values. While preaching good
works they would do well to relate the simple
social duty to the wealth of doctrines which
in Christian history have done service for the
same restricted code: the mystical body, the
communion of saints, death, resurrection,
immortality and speaking'in tongues.128
Victor Turner is an anthropologist who has captured the
attention of litu rg y scholars. His application of ritu al
studies in tr ib a l situations to the ritu a l of the Roman
Catholic litu rg y has provoked a great deal of comment, both
pro and con. He shares something with Mary Douglas in that
he ultimately comes down on the side of a r i t u a l i s t i c
stance, defining ritu a l as "prescribed formal behavior for
occasions not given over to technological routine, having
reference to invisib le beings or powers regarded as the
f i r s t and fin a l causes of all e f f e c t . "129 Objections to
Turner's application of anthropological studies to Western
litu rg y are usually based on distinctions between ritu a l and
litu rg y, religion and f a it h , magic and sacrament, or d i v i
nity and (s p e c ific a lly ) Christology. The objections are
worth noting, for they point up the necessity of refining
the s im ila r itie s Turner discovers between trib a l ritu a ls and
191
Catholic litu rg y . However, there is no denying that Turner
is making an invaluable contribution to litu rg ic a l studies
through his fundamental discoveries of the nature and func
tion of litu rg y at the most profound human level. In his
attempts to define r i t u a l , for instance, he has written:
Thus, i f one draws on the best of man's
consolidated ritu a l experience and wisdom,
both Christian and non-Christian, one finds
that ritu a l is the very antithesis of what
reforming puritanism had declared it to be.
Ritual is indeed a symphony in more than
music. It is, or can be, a symphony of
expressive genres, an opus which unlike opera
(also a m u ltip lic ity of genres) escapes
t h e a t r i c a l i t y by virtue of the seriousness of
its ultimate concerns. Ritual is, in essence,
not only many-leveled but also capable of
creative modification on all or any of its
levels. Since it communicates the deepest
values, it has a paradigmatic function; ritu al
can anticipate change as well as inscribe
order in the minds and hearts of p a r t ic ip a n t s .130
In this expression of the formative value of litu rg y , I
find a degree of balance which I have struggled to assert in
the foregoing chapters, namely, that in the morass of l i t u r
gical development in a time of change, we should not ignore
the potential in litu rg y to, form and shape the attitudes of
the participants. Ideally, the litu rg y of the Church should
not have to be "brought up to date." It should exercise the
leadership by which it "brings up to date" those who embrace
Yg2~
i t . This presupposes much more careful attention to the
appeal of liturgy as a rhetorical influence than has been
evidenced in post-conci1iar efforts on its behalf. Just as
we have seen in the history of litu rg ic a l reform that it has
followed upheaval and adapted to changes outside i t s e l f , so
we can see also that litu rg y has had, in the past, such a
formative influence, such a paradigmatic function. In order
for a similar influence to be exerted today, litu rg ic a l
renewal will demand a great deal of latitude in its
experimental stages, while at the same time recognizing the
power of its influence for i l l as well as good. The sen
s itiv e li t u r g i s t realizes that efficacious litu rg y builds up
fa ith and assent to communally held values; he also recogni
zes that litu rg y without appeal (bad litu rg y , if you w ill)
destroys f a it h . In praise of efficacious litu rg y , Turner
wr i t e s :
Participation in dramatic mysteries and con
templation of powerful dominant symbols
undoubtedly play a role in moving participants
out of th e ir mundane selves and allowing them
to act, think and feel "ref 1e x iv e ly ," that is,
by placing their current lives in v ital r e l a
tion to a supremely noble paradigm, the ble
mished against the unblemished, the selfish
against the s a c r i f i c i a l . 131
Whereas Mary Douglas would approach current d i f f i c u l t i e s
with symbol systems by preparing the potential worshipper
193
for effective p a rticip atio n, Turner would recognize the
power of ritu a l to form the participant. The dialectic
between these two positions is at the heart of current
litu rg ic a l renewal.
One thing is certain: the more we can assent to all
sides of the controversy (without abandoning prudence or
courage), the greater will be our successes. This study
asserts the necessity for assent to the wrenching struggle
for answers to litu rg y 's problems--for without assent we
will find ourselves engaged in a tug-of-war from which no
one w ill emerge the victor, since winning is not the desired
goal in any case. Perhaps we may be so optimistic as to
feel that our growing assent can even be furthered by the
dissent we have experienced. If so, we can call ourselves
true rhetoricians.
194
Notes
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), p. 203.
These essays were f i r s t delivered in a series of lectures
at Notre Dame University. Thus Booth's references to
"local application" and "your community."
2
Rev. A. Bugnini, C.M. and Rev. C. Braga, C.M., eds.,
The Commentary on the Constitution and on the Instruction
on the Sacred Liturgy (New York: Benziger Brothers, 196 5) ,
p. 1. This work contains the fu ll texts of Sacrosanctum
Con c i 1i urn and the instruction which soon f o l 1 owed ( Sacram
Li turqi am) translated from the Latin by Rev. Vincent P.
Mai 1 on , M. M. , as well as commentaries on both documents by
a committee of litu rg ic a l experts. The text of the Consti
tution ( Sacrosancturn Concilium) appears at the end of this
study as the Appendix. I t is divided into numbered para
graphs ( a r t i c l e s ) ; thus, all future quotations w ill refer
the reader to the relevant paragraph(s) in the Appendix.
This f i r s t quotation is from a rtic le one (Art. 1).
3
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961).
See especially Chapters 11- V.
^Lloyd F. Bit.zer and Edwin Black, eds., (Englewood
C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hal1, In c ., 1971). "Report
of the Committee on the Advancement and Refinement of Rhe
torical Cri ti ci sm," by Thomas 0. Sloan, e t . a l .
5P. 220.
6P. 221.
^Clifford Howell expresses well why such a feeling of
permanence was inculcated: "In one sense i t is true to say
that there is no history of the Mass litu rg y between the
Councils of Trent and of Vatican I I ; there is history only
of the way in which the Tridentine litu rg y was performed.
The 1570 Missal fixed the texts and r it e s , and the Sacred
Congregation of Rites was founded for the express purpose
of preventing any changes. Thus Trent ushered in four cen
turies of r ig id it y and fix a tio n ; i t was an era of rubri
cism." "From Trent to Vatican I I , " in The Study of Litu rg y ,
ed. Cheslyn Jones, et al_. (New York: Oxford University
Press , 1978) , p. 241.
195
8a brief summary of the Tridentine reforms, and the
reasons underlying them, may be found in Horton Davies,
Worship and Theology in England: Volume I. From Cranmer
to H o o k e r , 1534-1603 (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1970). See Chapter IV, section 5, "The Character
and Consequences of Trent's Liturgical Reforms."
9a brief but thorough history of the Liturgical Movement
may be found in The Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of
Cat hoiicism, Volume 115: The Sacerdotal Communities of St.
Severin of Paris and St. Joseph of Nice, The Liturgical
Movement (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1964).
1Qfhe Baltimore Catechism (1885) and later revisions of
it shaped the belief of several generations of Catholics.
Question 932 asks "What is the most important part of the
Mass? The answer: "The most important part of the Mass is
the consecration, when Christ's body and blood become really
present on the altar and are offered to God by the priest in
commemoration of Our Lord's death on the cross." See The
New Baltimore Catechism No. 3, ed. Francis J. Connell (New
York: Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1941), p. 240.
H The Dutch Catechism, as it is popularly called, reveals
a different emphasis, reflecting a different theology of the
Eucharist: "We come together, in a place where a table is
set, with bread on a dish, and wine ready in a cup. During
the canon we hear the words, Take and e a t , and then people
do eat and drink. Hence Mass is an assembly in the form of
a meal. The body of Jesus is offered to us. W e shall speak
later in the chapter of the way in which our Lord is present
in this sacrament. Here we note above all that it is to a
meal that we are invited. . . ." A New Catechism: Catholic
Faith for Adults, trans. Kevin Smyth (New York: Herder and
Herder, 1967 ) , p. 338. The original edition of this book,
De Nieuwe Katechismus, was commissioned by the Hierarchy of
the Netherlands and produced by the Higher Catechetical
In s titu te at Nijmegen in collaboration with numerous others.
l^George J. Dyer, et _al_., eds., An American Catholic
Catechism (New York: The Seabury Press, 1975 ) , pT 162.
"The central action of the Eucharist is above all the
memorial of Jesus' redemptive death on our behalf. . . .
This memorial, however, is not simply the act of our
thinking and pondering about what Jesus did. His mandate
was that we do th is , in living enactment of what he did at
196
the supper. At the heart of the Eucharist is a dramatic
gesture s trik in g ly expressive of his death on our behalf.
W e do not memorialize the supper, but the giving of his
body and the shedding of his blood in death on our behalf.
(Emphasis mine)
13james Hitchcock, The Recovery of the Sacred (New York:
The Seabury Press, 1974). See especially Chapter One, "The
Liturgical Revolution," in which the author compiles a lis t
of comments from religious leaders indicating the move from
the sacred to the profane.
l ^ I t is c l e a r l y u n f a i r to use the term "protestant" to
describe a litu rg y which is f e l t to be dull or plain. It is
also unfair to describe a liturgy replete with externals as
magical. I am, at this point, outlining the popular reac
tions to litu rg ic a l change, reactions based on feeling and
limited experience. Surely what is implied in these reac
tions is the age-old confusion of protestantism and purita-
nism, on the one hand, and ritu a l and magic on the other.
For an excellent treatment of the matter from an historical
point of view, see Dorn Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy
(London: Dacre Press, Adam & Charles Black, 1945) , Chapter
XI. For a detailed account of the issue as it appeared in
the Anglican/Roman Catholic struggles of the sixteenth cen
tury, see Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England:
Volume I. From Cranmer to Hooker, 1534-1603 (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1970), Chapter T, "Catholics and
Protestants in Controversy (1534-1568)." Both works in d i
cate how old the current d i f f i c u l t y with litu rg ic a l reform
actually is. Davies concludes Chapter One with these words:
"In short, sim p licity, order, i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , and f i d e l i t y
to the Bible were to replace the riches of tra d itio n and an
impressive mystery and pageantry. Spectators became par
ticipants .and ethics were preferred to aesthetics. It was
f e l t , rig h tly or wrongly, to be a return to the simplicity
of Christ and to the purity of the primitive church"
(p. 39).
1^Now Don't Try to Reason With Me (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1970) , pp. 25-33 .
^ Modern Dogma, p. 203.
l^Nancy White and Elaine Sciolino, "Collision Course,"
July 16, 1979, p. 70.
19 7
18(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 16.
Here we encounter another response to the move from
aesthetics to ethics. Two articles which deal with the
response in terms of ritu a l and the idea of the sacred are:
Rembert G. Weakland, "The 'Sacred' and Liturgical Renewal,"
Wor sh i p, 49 ( 1975), and Ronald L. Grimes, "Modes of Ritual
Necessity," Worsh i p, 53 ( 1979).
20"The Church's Liturgy: Present and Future," ed. David
Tracy (Dublin: Gil and Macmillan, Ltd., 1978), p. 221.
21 P. 22 2 .
22 p. 224 .
23counter-Statement (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1957 ) , p. 144 .
24Maldonado, p. 228.
25(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969),
p . xv.
26(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957).
27p. 144.
28jhis entire book is concerned with an assent to values
which, though incapable of being demonstrated in a p o s i t i
vist sense, are nonetheless admissible evidence in the
debating of human a ffa irs .
29 P. 14.
SOHitchcock, Chapter Two, "The Chimera of Relevance."
3lHitchcock, Chapter Four, "The Loss of History."
32chaim Perelman and L. 01brechts-Tyteca, The New
Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1969) . The following
discussion of Perelman's views is based p rin cip ally on "Part
One: The Framework of Argumentation."
33Lane Cooper, The Rhetoric of A ris to tle (Englewood
C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prenti ce-Hal 1 , 1932 ) , p. 7.
198
34
Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method (Madison:
The University of Wisconsin Press, 1978), p. T49.
35P. 177.
q £
Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L.
Pike, Rhetoric: Discovery and Change (New York: Harcourt,
B race and World, 1970) , pp. 54-58.
37
Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleier-
macher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer (Evanston , 111i n o i s :
Northwestern Uni versify Press , 1959 ) , p. 6.
3 8
See, for example, Nathan M itc hell, "Liturgical
Education in Roman Catholic Seminaries: A Report and an
Appraisal," and Thomas A. Krosnicki and John A. G u rrie ri,
"Seminary Liturgy Revisited," both in Worship 54 (1980),
129-169.
39
Structuralism and Since: From Levi-Strauss to Der
rida (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979) , p. T5T
40
The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure
(Ithaca^ New York: Corne 11 University Press, 1969) , p. vi i .
41
Kenneth L. Woodward, ejt al_. , "A New Look at Lit C rit,"
Newsweek, June 22 , 1981 , pp. 80-83.
42
"History as Apocalypse," in Deconstruction and Theo
logy, 1 1 ed. Carl A. Raschke (New York: The Crossroad Pub
lishing Company, 1982), pp. 147-177.
43
Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-
Structuralism (Baltimore: The Johns Hopki ns Uni versi ty
Press, 1980) , p. 224.
44P. 226.
45
The phrase is from "Post-Structuralism and Composi
tion," an unpublished a rtic le by W. Ross Winterowd, Uni
versity of Southern C alifo rn ia , Los Angeles.
46
Grammar of Motives, p. 289.
47
Quoted in Burkhard Neunheuser, "Odo Case! in Retro-
199
spect and Prospect," Worshi p , 50 ( 1976), 494-495.
48Pp. 495-496.
49
The New R h e to ric , pp. 116-117.
88"The Church's L itu rg y ," p. 222.
51
The In te r p r e ta tio n of Cultures (New York: Basic
Books, I n c . , 1973) , p. 112.
52P. 112.
53P. 223.
54
"The,New R heto ric: A Theory o f P ra c tic a l Reasoning,"
Great Ideas Today, eds. Robert M. Hutchins and Mortimer J.
Adler (Chicago: Encyclopedia B r ita n n ic a , 1970), p. 289.
55
Austin Flannery, e d . , Vatican Council I I : The Con-
c i l i a r and Post-C onci1i a r Documents (New York: The Cos -
t e l l o Publishing Company, 1975) , p. 102.
56
The most useful discussion and consolidation of cur
rent theories of r it u a l is s t i l l th a t of Edmund Leach:
" R itu a l," In te rn a tio n a l Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences ,
1968 ed.
5 7
0 / P. 123.
5 8
" Dramatism," In te rn a tio n a l Encyclopedia of the Social
Sci en ces, 1968 ed.
59
C ounter-S tatem ent, p. 124.
60
See Stanley E. Fish, " L ite ra tu r e in the Reader: A f
fe c tiv e S t y l i s t i c s , " in New L ite ra r y H is to ry 2 (1 9 7 0 ),
123-62.
fi 1
Coun t e r - S t atem ent, p. 124.
62"About Liturgy and it s Loqic," Worship, 50 (1 9 7 6 ),
p. 23.
/• Q
C ounter-Statem ent, p. 124.
200
Federation of Diocesan L itu r g ic a l Commissions, The
Mystery of F a ith : A Study o f the S tru c tu ra l Elements of
the Order o f the Mass (Washington, D. C .: n. p. , 1981},
p. 14.
65
The In tro d u c to ry Rites are the r e s u lt of a compromise
among the Council Fathers, some wishing to re ta in the f o r
mer Prayers at the Foot of the A l t a r , others hoping to e l i
minate them as a medieval a c c re tio n . The re s u lt is some
thing of a mishmash. See Mark S e a rle , Liturgy Made S im ple,
( C o lle g e v i11e , Minnesota: The Li tu rg i cat P ress, 1981) ,
pp. 35-37.
88The Mystery of F a it h , p. 16.
87 C ounter-Statem ent, p. 123.
68P. 125.
69P. 125.
78The Bishops' Committee on P r ie s tly L ife and M in is tr y ,
N ational Conference o f C atho lic Bishops, F u l f i l l e d in Your
Hearing: The Homily in the Sunday Assembly (Washington,
D.C.: United States C atholic Conference, 1982), pp. 9-10.
71
Counter-Statem ent, p. 125.
72P. 126.
73Pp. 138-139.
74
Saint Joseph Sunday Missal (New York: C atholic Book
P ub1i shing Company, 19 7 4 ), p. 50".
75P. 50.
76P. 52.
7 7
Counter-Statem ent, p. 33.
7 R
Worshi p , 52 (1978). The November issue is Number 6.
79
Not With Words of Wisdom: Perform ative Language and
L iturgy (Washington, D. C. : Uni v e rs ity Press of America,
Inc. , 1981).
201
80
Two f a m ilia r works in Speech Act Theory are employed
here: J .L . A u stin, How to Do Things With Words (New York:
Oxford U n iv e rs ity Press, 1962) and John FL S e a r le , Speech
Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge:
Camb ri dge Un i vers i ty Press , 19 70;.
81
"The P e rfo rm a tiv ity of L itu r g ic a l Language," in
L itu rg ic a l Experience of F a it h , eds. Herman Schmidt and
David Power (New York: He rde r and Herder, 1 9 73), pp. 50-62
82Pp. 59-60.
8 3
Grammar of M o tives, p. 3.
84P. 7.
8 8 "The Church's L itu rg y ," p. 2 28.
(New Haven and London: Yale U n iv e rs ity Press, 1974).
87P. 22.
88P. 32.
89Pp. 34-35.
9 0
" L in g u is tic s and P o e tic s ," in S tyle in Language, ed.
Thomas A. Sebeok (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press,
1960).
91P. 41.
9 2
" L itu rg ic a l Business Unfinished and Unbegun," Worship
50 (1976) 356.
93 /
Francis Christensen and Bonniejean Christensen, (New
York: Harper and Row, 1 9 78), pp. 23-24.
94P. 356.
96
S ty le : An A n ti-T e x tb o o k , p. 37
9 6
Now Don't Try to Reason With Me (Chicago: U n iv e rs ity
of Chicago Press, 1 9 7 0 ), p. T T .
9 7
Modern Dogma, p. 144.
202
98P. 145.
9 9 ",The Churches L itu rg y ," 227-228
* 80(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961), pp.
128-129.
101Pp. 129-130.
10?
Modern Dogma, pp. 202-203.
103
Grammar of M o tive s , p. 16.
104
In L itu r g ic a l Experience of F a it h , ed. Herman
Schmidt and David Power (New York: Herder and Herder,
1973) , p. 77.
105Pp. 82-84.
1 0 fi
Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose
(In d ia n a p o lis : The Bobbs-M erri11 Company, I n c . , 1965),
p. 64.
107Pp. 64-65.
108P. 65.
109P. 65.
110P. 66.
^■^(New York: Vintage Books, 1973), p. 25.
112
The Philosophy of Rhetoric (New York: Oxford
U n iv e rs ity Press, 1936; r e p r in t 1976), p. 3.
113
"The Metaphorical Process as C o gn ition , Im ag ination ,
and F e e lin g ," in On Metaphor, ed. Sheldon Sacks (Chicago:
U n iv e rs ity o f Chicago Press, 1978), p. 141.
114
Mark S e a rle , "L itu rg y as Metaphor," Worship, 55
(1981) 101-102.
115P. 103
203
* * 8Phi 1 osophy of R h eto ric, p. 93.
117P. 116.
118P. 116.
119
Trans. Joseph Ward Swain (London: George
Unwin, L t d ., 1915), pp. 381-382.
Allen and
120P. 115.
121P. 118.
122,\The Church's L itu rg y ," p. 234.
12 3
In tro d u ctio n to The Roots o f R it u a l, ed. James D.
Shaughnessy (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W illia m B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1 973), p. 8.
124P. 22.
125P. 36.
126P. 43.
127Pp. 54-55.
128PP. 200-201.
12^ " R itu a l, T rib a l and C a th o lic ," 'Worship , 50
504.
(1976)
130
iJUPp. 505-506.
131P. 520.
204
Bi b li ography
Abbott, W alter M ., ed. The Documents of Vatican I I . New
York: The America Press, 1966.
A l t i z e r , Thomas J .J . "H istory as Apocalypse." In Decon-
s tru c tio n and Theology. Ed. Carl A. Raschke. New York:
The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1982, pp. 147-177.
A u stin, J.L. How to Do Things With Words. Cambridge:
Harvard U n iv e rs ity Press, 19 75.
The Bishops' Committee on P r ie s tly L ife and M in is tr y ,
National Conference of C atholic Bishops. F u l f i l l e d in
Your Hearing: The Homily in the Sunday Assembly.
Washington, D.C.: United States C atho lic Conference,
1982.
B it z e r , Lloyd F. and Edwin Black, eds. The Prospect of
Rhetoric: Report of the National Development P r o je c t.
Englewood C l i f f s , N .J .: P r e n tic e -H a l1, I n c . , 1971.
Black, Edwin. R hetorical C ritic is m : A Study in Method.
Madison: The U n iv e rs ity of Wisconsin Press, 1978.
Booth, Wayne C. Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.
Chicago: U n iv e rs ity of Chicago Press, 1967.
Now Don't Try to Reason With Me: Essays and
Iro n ies fo r a Credulous Age. Chicago: The U n iv e rs ity
of Chicago Press, 1970.
The Rhetoric o f F ic t io n . Chicago: The Uni
v e rs ity of Chicago Press, 1975.
B ugnini, Rev. A, C .M ., and Rev. C. Braga, C.M ., gen. eds.
The Commentary on the C o n stitu tio n and- on the In s tru c
tio n on the Sacred L itu r g y . New York: Benziger
Brothe r s , 1965.
Burke, Kenneth. Counter-Statem ent. Chicago: The U n iv e rs i
ty of Chicago Press, 1957.
------------ . " Dramatism." In te rn a tio n a l Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences. 1968 ed.
205
- . A Grammar of M otives, Berkeley: The Uni
v e rs ity o f C a lifo r n ia Press, 1974.
-t . Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose.
In d ia n a p o lis : The Bobbs-M erri11 Company, I n c . , 1965.
Christensen, Francis and Bonniejean Christensen. Notes
Toward a New Rhetoric: Nine Essays fo r Teachers.
New York: Harper and Row, 1978.
Connell, Francis J . , ed. The New Baltim ore Catechism No. 3.
New York: Benziger B rothers, I n c . , 1941.
Cooper, Lane, ed. The Rhetoric of A r i s t o t l e . Englewood
C l i f f s , N .J .: P r e n tic e -H a l1, I n c . , 1960.
Dalmais, Ir£ n £ e -H e n ri. "The Expression of the Faith in
the Eastern L itu r g ie s ." In L itu r g ic a l Experience of
F a it h . Ed. Herman Schmidt and David Power. New York:
Herder and Herder, 1973, pp. 77-85.
Davies, Horton. Worship and Theology in England: Volume I.
From Cranmer to Hooker, 1534-1603. Princeton: P rince
ton U n iv e rs ity Press, 1970.
Dix, Gregory. The Shape of the L it u r g y . London: Adam and
Charles B lack, 19 70.
Douglas, Mary. Natural Symbols. New York: Vintage Books,
1973.
Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious
LJMFe. London: George Allen and Unwin, L t d ., 1915.
Dyer, George J. , e_t a_l_. An American C atholic Catechism.
New York: The Seabury Press, 1975.
Federation of Diocesan L itu r g ic a l Commissions. The Mystery
of F a ith : A Study of the S tru c tu ra l Elements of the
Order of the Mass. Washington, D.C.: n . p . , 1981.
Fish, S tanley. " L ite ra tu r e in the Reader: A ffe c tiv e
S t y l i s t i c s . " New L ite ra r y H istory 2 (1 9 7 0 ), 123-62.
Flannery, A u s tin , O .P ., ed. Vatican Council I I : The Con-
c i l i a r and . Post-Conci1i a r Documents. New York: Cos
t e l l o Publishing Company, 1975.
206
G eertz, C lif f o r d . The In te r p r e ta tio n of C u ltu re s . New
York: Basic Books, I n c . , 1973.
H itchcock, James. The Recovery of the Sacred. New York:
The Seabury Press, 1974.
Holmer, Paul. "About Liturgy and Its Logic." Worship,
50 (1 9 7 6 ), 18-28.
Howell, C l i f f o r d , S .J. "From Trent to Vatican I I . " In
The Study of L itu r g y . Ed. Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey
W ainw right, and Edward Yarnold, S.J. New York: Oxford
U n iv e rs ity Press, 1978, pp. 241-48.
Jakobson , Roman. "L in g u is tic s and P o e tic s ." In S ty 1e in
Language. Ed. Thomas A. Sebeok. Cambridge, Massachu
s e tts : The MIT Press, 1960, pp. 350-77.
Kavanagh, Aidan. " L itu r g ic a l Business Unfinished and
Unbegun." Worshi p , 50 ( 1976), 354-64.
K ro s n ic k i, Thomas A. and John A. G u e r r ie r i. "Seminary
Liturgy R e v is ite d ." Worshi p , 54 ( 1980), 153-69. .
Lad ri& re, Jean. "The P e rfo rm a tiv ity of L itu r g ic a l
Language." In L itu r g ic a l Experience of F a ith . Ed.
Herman Schmidt and David Power. New York: Herder
and Herder, 1973, pp. 50-62.
Lanham, Richard A. S ty le : An A n ti-T e x tb o o k . New Haven
and London: Yale U n iv e rs ity Press, 1974.
Leach, Edmund. " R it u a l." Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences. 1968 ed.
i i ■ 11 ■ i. . *
Maldonado, Luis. "The Church's L itu rg y : Present and
F uture." In Toward Vatican I I I : The Work That Needs
to be Done. Ed. David Tracy. Dub 1i n : G ill and Mac-
m illa n , L t d ., 1978, pp. 221-37.
M it c h e ll, Nathan. " L itu rg ic a l Education in Roman C atholic
Sem inaries: A Report and an A p p ra is a l." Worship, 54
{ 1980) , 129-57.
Neunheuser, Burkhard. "Odo Casel in Retrospect and Pros
p e c t." Worshi p , 50 ( 1 976), 489-504.
207
Palmer, Richard E. Hermeneutics: In te r p r e ta tio n Theory
in Schleierm acher, Dilthe.y, Heidegger, and Gadamer.
Evanston, I l l i n o i s : Northwestern U n iv e rs ity Press,
1969.
Perelman, Chaim and L. Obrechts-Tyteca. The New R h e to ric :
A T re a tis e on Argumentation. Notre Dame: U n iv e rs ity
of Notre Dame Press, 1971.
Reinhold, H.A. The Dynamics of L itu r g y . New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1961.
Richards, Iv o r Armstrong. The Philosophy of R h e to ric .
London: Oxford U n iv e rs ity Press, 1976.
Ricoeur, Paul. "The Metaphorical Process as C ognition,
Im ag ination , and F e e lin g ." In On Metaphor. Ed.
Sheldon Sacks. Chicago: The U n iv e rs ity of Chicago
Press, 1980, pp. 141-57.
The Sacerdotal Communities of St. Severin of Paris and St.
Joseph of Nice. The L itu r g ic a l Movement. Vol. 115 of
The Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of CathoTicism.
New York: Hawthorn Books, 1964.
Saint Joseph Sunday M is s a l. New York: C atho lic Book
Publishing Company, 1974.
S e a rle , John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of
Language. Oxford: The Alden Press, 1974.
S e a rle , Mark. "L itu rg y as Metaphor." Worship, 55 (1 9 8 1 ),
pp. 98-120.
L iturgy Made Sim ple. Col 1e g e v i11e , Minnesota:
The L itu r g ic a l Press, 1981.
Shaughnessy, James D . , ed. The Roots of R it u a l. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: W illiam B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1973.
Smyth, KeVin, tra n s. A New Catechism: C atholic Faith fo r
A d u lts . Commissioned by the Hierarchy of the Nether
lands and produced by the Higher C atechetical In s t i t u t e
at Nijmegen. New York: Herder and Herder, 1967.
208
S tu rro c k , John. S tru c tu ra lis m and Since: From Levi-Strauss
to D e rrid a . New York: Oxford U n iv e rs ity Press, 19 79.
Tompkins, Jane P . , ed. Reader-Response C ritic is m : From
Formalism to P o s t-S tru c tu ra lis m . B altim ore: The Johns
Hopkins U n iv e rs ity Press, 1980.
Turner, V ic to r . The Ritual Process: Structure and A n ti-
St ructu r e , New York: Cornell U n iv e rs ity Press, 1969.
" R it u a l, T rib a l and C a th o lic ." Worship, 50
(1 9 7 6 ), 504-26.
Ware, James H. , Jr. Not With Words of Wisdom: Perform ative
Language and L itu r g y . Washington, D.C.: U n iv e rs ity
Press of America, 1981.
Weakland, Rembert. "The 'Sacred* and L itu r g ic a l Renewal."
Worshi p , 49 ( 1975), 512-29 .
W hite, Nancy and Elaine S c io lin o . " C o llis io n Course."
Newsweek , 16■ J u1y 1979, p. 70.
Winterowd, W. Ross. "P o s t-S tru c tu ra lis m and Composition."
Unpublished a r t i c l e shared with the author.
Woodward, Kenneth, ejt aj_. "A New Look at L it C r it ."
Newsweek, 22 June 1981, pp. 80-83.
Worshi p , 52 ( 1978). The November issu e, Number 6, devoted
e n t i r e l y to a r t ic le s on l i t u r g i c a l language.
Young, Richard E . , Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike.
Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. New York: H arcourt,
Brace and World, I n c . , 1970.
Zeeveld, W. Gordon. The Temper of Shakespeare's Thought.
New Haven: Yale U n iv e rs ity Press, 1974.
209
APPENDIX
Sacrosancturo Concilium
(The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)
Translated by Rev. Vincent P. Mai Ion, M.M.
Benziger Brothers New York 1965
210
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT O F THE SERVANTS O F G O D
TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS
O F THE COUNCIL
AD PERPETUAM R E I MEMORIAM
CONSTITUTION O N THE SACRED LITURGY
INTRODUCTION
1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to
impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the
faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times
those institutions which are subject to change; to foster what
ever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to
strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into
the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees par
ticularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion
of the liturgy.
2. For the liturgy, "through which the work of our redemption is
accomplished,"! most of all in the divine sacrifice of the
eucharist, is the outstanding means whereby the faithful may
express in their lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of
Christ and the real nature of the true Church. It is of the
essence of the Church that she be both human and divine, visible
and yet invisibly equipped, eager to act and yet intent on con
templation, present in this world and yet not at home in it; and
she is all these things in such wise that in her the human is
directed and subordinated to the divine, the visible likewise to
the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to
that city yet to come, which we seek.2 While the liturgy daily
builds up those who are within into a holy temple of the Lord,
into a dwelling place for God in the S p irit,3 to the mature
measure of the fullness of Christ,4 at the same time it mar
vellously strengthens their power to preach Christ, and thus
shows forth the Church to those who are outside as a sign lifted
up am ong the nations^ under which the scattered children of God
may be gathered together^ until there is one sheepfold and one
shepherd.^
211
3. Wherefore the sacred Council judges that the following prin
ciples concerning the promotion and reform of the liturgy should
be called to mind, and that practical norms should be
established.
Am ong these principles and norms there are some which can and
should be applied both to the Rom an rite and also to all the
other rites. The practical norms which follow, however, should
be taken as applying only to the Rom an rite , except for those
which, in the very nature of things, affect other rites as well.
4. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred
Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully
acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she
wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every
way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites
be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that
they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of
modern times.
212
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PRINCIPLES FO R THE RESTORATION
AND PROMOTION O F THE SACRED LITURGY
1. The Nature of the Sacred Liturgy and
Its Importance in the Church's Life
5. God who "wills that all m en be saved and come to the
knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4), "who in many and various
ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets" (Heb.
1:1), when the fullness of time had come sent his Son, the Word
made flesh, anointed by the Holy Spirit, to preach the gospel to
the poor, to heal the contrite of heart,8 to be a "bodily and
spiritual medicine,"9 the Mediator between God and man.10 For
his humanity, united with the person of the Word, was the instru
ment of our salvation. Therefore in Christ"the perfect achieve
ment of our reconciliation came forth, and the fulness of divine
worship was given to us."H
The wonderful works of God among the people of the Old
Testament were but a prelude to the work of Christ the Lord in
redeeming mankind and giving perfect glory to God. He achieved
his task principally by the paschal mystery of his blessed
passion, resurrection from the dead, and glorious ascension,
whereby "dying, he destroyed our death and, rising, he restored
our lif e ." ! 2 For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the
sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth "the wondrous
sacrament of the whole Church."13
6. Just as Christ was sent by the Father, so also he sent the
apostles, fille d with the Holy Spirit.' This he did that, by
preaching the gospel to every creature,14 they might proclaim
that the Son of God, by his death and resurrection, had freed us
from the power of Satanic and from death, and brought us into the
kingdom of his Father. His purpose also was that they might
accomplish the work of salvation which they had proclaimed, by
means of sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire
liturgical life revolves. Thus by baptism m en are plunged into
the paschal mystery of Christ: they die with him, are buried
with him, and rise with him;16 they receive the spirit of adop
tion as sons "in which we cry; Abba, Father" (Rom. 8:15), and
213
thus become true adorers whom the Father seeks.^ In like
manner, as often as they eat the supper of the Lord they proclaim
the death of the Lord until he comes.For that reason, on the
very day of Pentecost, when the Church appeared before the world,
"those who received the word" of Peter "were baptized." And
"they continued steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles and
in the communion of the breaking of bread and in prayers. . .
praising God and being in favor with all the people" (Acts
2:41-47). From that time onwards the Church has never failed to
come together to celebrate the paschal mystery: reading those
things "which were in all the scriptures concerning him" (Luke
24:27), celebrating the eucharist in which "the victory and
triumph of his death are again made present,"19 and at the same
time giving thanks "to God for his unspeakable gift" (2 Cor.
9:15) in Christ Jesus, "in praise of his glory"(Eph. 1:12.)
through the power of the Holy S p irit.'
7. To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in
his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is
present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of
his minister, "the same now offering, through the ministry of
priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,"20. but espe
cially under the eucharistic species. By his power he is present
in the sacraments, so that when a m an baptizes it is really
Christ himself who baptizes.21 He is present in his word, since
it is he himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in
the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and
sings, for he promised: "Where two or three are gathered
together in m y name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt.
18:20).
Christ indeed always associates the Church with himself in
this great work wherein God is perfectly glorified and m en are
sanctified. The Church is his beloved Bride who calls to her
Lord, and through him offers worship to the Eternal Father.
Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the
priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanc
tification of m an is signified by signs perceptible to the sen
ses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of
these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed
by the mystical body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the head and
his members.
214
From this it follows that every liturgical celebration,
because it is an action of Christ the priest and of his body
which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no
other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same
t it le and to the same degree.
8. In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that
heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of
Jerusalem towards which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is
sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of
the true tabernacle;22 we sing a hym n to the Lord's glory with
all the warriors of the heavenly army; venerating the memory of
the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we
eagerly await the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, until he, our
life , shall appear and we too will appear with him in glory.23
9. The sacred liturgy does not exhaust the entire activity of
the Church. Before m en can come to the liturgy they must be
called to faith and to conversion: "How then are they to call
upon him in whom they have not yet believed? But how are they to
believe him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear
if no one preaches? And how are m en to preach unless they be
sent?" (Rom. 10: 14-15).
Therefore the Church announces the good tidings of salvation
to those who do not believe, so that all m en may know the true
God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, and may be converted from
their ways, doing penance.24 Jo believers also the Church must
ever preach faith and penance; she must prepare them for the
sacraments, teach them to observe all that Christ has com
manded,25 and invite them to all the works of charity, piety,
and the apostolate. For all these works make it clear that
Christ's faithful, though not of this world, are to be the light
of the world and to glorify the Father before men.
10. Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit towards which the
activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the
fount from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of
apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and
baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of his
Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and eat the Lord's supper.
The liturgy in its turn moves the faithful, fille d with "the
paschal sacraments," to be "one in h o lin e s s ";2 6 it prays that
215
"they may hold fast in their lives to what they have grasped by
their faith";27 the renewal in the eucharist of the covenant be
tween the Lord and m an draws the faithful into the compelling
love of Christ and sets them on fire . From the liturgy, there
fore, and especially from the eucharist, as from a fount, grace
is poured forth upon us; and the sanctification of m en in Christ
and the glorification of God, to which all other activities of
the church are directed as towards their end, is achieved in the
most efficacious possible way.
11. But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce.its
full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with
proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their
voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest
they receive it in v a in .28 Pastors of souls must therefore
realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is
required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid
and lic it celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the
faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively
engaged in the rite , and enriched by its effects.
12. The spiritual life , however, is not limited solely to par
ticipation in the liturgy. The Christian is indeed called to
pray with his brethren, but he must also enter into his chamber
to pray to the Father in secret;29 yet more, according to the
teaching of the Apostle, he should pray without ceasing.30 we
learn from the same Apostle that we must always bear about in our
body the dying of Jesus, so that the life also of Jesus may be
made manifest in our bodily frame.31 This is why we ask the Lord
in the sacrifice of the Mass that, "receiving the offering of the
spiritual victim," he may fashion us for himself "as an eternal
g i f t . "32
13. Popular devotions of the Christian people are to be highly
commended, provided they accord with the laws and norms of the
Church, above all when they are ordered by the Apostolic See.
Devotions proper to individual Churches also have a special
dignity if they are undertaken by mandate of the bishops
according to customs or books lawfully approved.
But these devotions should be so drawn up that they harmonize
with the liturgical seasons, accord with the. sacred liturgy, are
in some fashion derived from i t , and lead the people to it,
216
since, in fact, the liturgy by its very nature far surpasses any
of them.
II The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction
and Active Participation
14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should
be led to that fu ll, conscious, and active participation in
liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of
the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a
chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed
people" (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by
reason of their baptism.
In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this
full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be
considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispen
sable source from which the faithful are to derive the true
Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously
strive to achieve i t , by means of the necessary instruction, in
all their pastoral work.
Yet it would be fu tile to entertain any hopes of realizing
this unless the pastors themselves, in the firs t place, become
thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and
undertake to give instruction about i t . A prime need, therefore,
is that attention be directed, firs t of a ll, to the liturgical
instruction of the clergy. Wherefore the sacred Council has
decided to enact as follows:
15. Professors who are appointed to teach liturgy in seminaries,
religious houses of study, and theological faculties must be pro
perly trained for their work in institutes which specialize in
this subject.
16. The study of sacred liturgy is to be ranked among the com
pulsory and major courses in seminaries and religious houses of
studies; in theological faculties it is to rank among the prin
cipal courses. It is to be taught under its theological,
historical, spiritual, pastoral, and juridical aspects.
Moreover, other professors, while striving to expound the mystery
of Christ and the history of salvation from the angle proper to
each of their own subjects must nevertheless do so in a way which
217
will clearly bring out the connection between their subjects and
the liturgy , as also the unity which underlies all priestly
training. This consideration is especially important for pro
fessors of dogmatic, spiritual, and pastoral theology and for
those of holy scripture.
17. In seminaries and houses of religious, clerics shall be
given a liturgical formation in their spiritual life . For this
they will need proper direction, so that they may be able to
understand the sacred rites and take part in them whole-hearted
ly; and they will also need personally to celebrate the sacred
mysteries, as well as popular devotions which are imbued with the
spirit of the liturgy. In addition they must learn how to observe
the liturgical laws, so that life in seminaries and houses of
religious may be thoroughly influenced by the spirit of the
liturgy.
18. Priests, both secular and religious, who are already working
in the Lord's vineyard are to be helped by every suitable means
to understand ever more fully what it is that they are doing when
they perform sacred rites; they are to be aided to live the
liturgical life and to share it with the faithful entrusted to
their care.
19. With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the
liturgical instruction of the faithfu l, and also their active
participation in the liturgy both internally and externally,
taking into account their age and condition, their way of life ,
and standard of religious culture. By so doing, pastors will be
fu lfillin g one of the chief duties of a faithful dispenser of the
mysteries of God; and in this matter they must lead their flock
not only in word but also by example.
20. Transmissions of the sacred rites by radio and television
shall be done with discretion and dignity, under the leadership
and direction of a suitable person appointed to this office by
the bishops. This is especially important when the service to be
broadcast is the Mass.
I l l The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy
21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive
an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother
218
Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration
of the liturgy its e lf. For the liturgy is made up of immutable
elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change.
These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of
time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of
harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become
unsuited to it .
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up
so that they express more clearly the holy things which they
signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be
enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them
fully, actively, and as befits a community.
Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general
norms:
A) General Norms
22. §1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the
authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as
laws may determine, on the bishop.
§2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation
of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to
various kinds of competent territo rial bodies of bishops le g iti
mately established.
§3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may
add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own
authority.
23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way
remain open to legitimate progress, a careful investigation is
always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be
revised. This investigation should be theological, historical
and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and
meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the
experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the
indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no
innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly
requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted
should in som e way grow organically from forms already existing.
219
As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used
in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.
24. Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in celebra
tion of the liturgy. For it is from scripture that lessons are
read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung; the
prayers, collects, and liturgical songs are scriptural in their
inspiration, and it is from the scriptures that actions and signs
derive their meaning. Thus to achieve the restoration, progress,
and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote
that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable
tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony.
25. The liturgical books are to *be revised as soon as possible;
experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be
consulted, from various parts of the world.
B. Norms Drawn from the Hierarchic and
Communal Nature of the Liturgy
26. Liturgical services are not private functions, but are
celebrations of the Church, which is the "sacrament of unity,"
namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops.33
Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the
Church, they manifest it and have effects upon it; but they con
cern the individual members of the Church in different ways,
according to their differing rank, office, and actual
participation.
27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to
their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration
involving the presence and active participation of the faithful,
this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as
possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
This applies with especial force to the celebration of Mass
and the administration of the sacraments, even though every Mass
has of itself a public and social nature.
28. In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman,
who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those
parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and
the principles of liturgy.
220
29. Servers, lectors, commentators, and members of the choir
also exercise a genuine liturgical function. They ought, there
fore, to discharge their office with the sincere piety and
decorum demanded by so exalted a ministry and rightly expected of
them by God's people.
Consequently they must all be deeply imbued with the spirit of
the liturgy, each in his own measure, and they must be trained to
perform their functions in a correct and orderly manner.
30. To promote active participation, the people should be
encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses,
psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures,
and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe
a reverent silence.
31. The revision of the liturgical books must carefully attend
to the provision of rubrics also for the people's parts.
32. The liturgy makes distinctions between persons according to
their liturgical function and sacred Orders, and there are
liturgical laws providing for due honors to be given to civil
authorities. Apart from these instances, no special honors are
to be paid in the liturgy to any private persons or classes of
persons, whether in the ceremonies or by external display.
C) Norms Based upon the Didactic
and Pastoral Nature of the Liturgy
33. Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship
of the divine Majesty, it likewise contains m uch instruction for
the fa ith fu l.34 For in the liturgy God speaks to his people and
Christ is s till proclaiming his gospel. And the people reply to
God both by song and prayer.
Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who pre
sides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the
name of the entire holy people and of all present. And the
visible signs used by the liturgy to signify invisible divine
things have been chosen by Christ or the Church. Thus not only
when things are read "which were written for our instruction"
(Rom. 14:4), but also when the Church prays or sings or acts, the
faith of those taking part is nourished and their minds are
221
raised to God, so that they may offer him their rational service
and more abundantly receive his grace.
Wherefore, in the revision of the liturgy, the following
general norms should be observed:
34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity;
they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless
repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of
comprehension, and normally should not require m uch explanation.
35. That the intimate connection between words and rites may be
apparent in the liturgy: 1) In sacred celebrations there is to
be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied
and suitable. 2) Because the sermon is part of the liturgical
service, the best place for it is to be indicated even in the
rubrics, as far as the nature of the rite will allow; the
ministry of preaching is to be fu lfille d with exactitude and
fid e lity . The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly
from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should
be that of a proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history
of salvation, the mystery of Christ, ever made present and active
within us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy. 3)
Instruction which is more explicitly liturgical should also be
given in a variety of ways; if necessary, short directives to be
spoken by the priest or proper minister should be provided within
the rites themselves. But they should occur only at the more
suitable moments, and be in prescribed or similar words. 4)
Bible services should be encouraged, especially on the vigils of
the more solemn feasts, on some weekdays in Advent and Lent, and
on Sundays and feast days. They are particularly to be commended
in places where no priest is available; when this is so, a deacon
or some other person authorized by the bishop should preside over
the celebration.
36. §1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin
language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
§2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the
Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the
liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the
limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the
firs t place to the readings and directives, and to some of the
prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter
to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
222
§3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent
territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, §2, to
decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to
be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by
the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this
authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions
which have the same language.
§4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue
intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent
territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
D) Norms for Adapting the Liturgy to the
Culture and Traditions of People
37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a
rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or
the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and '
foster the genius and talents of the various races and people.
Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly
bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy
and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits
such things into the liturgy its e lf, so long as they harmonize
with its true and authentic spirit.
38. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical
books, for legitimate variations and adaptions to different
groups, regions, and people, especially in mission lands, pro
vided that the substantial unity of the Rom an rite is preserved;
and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and
devising rubrics.
39. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the
liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial
ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, §2, to specify
adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the
sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language,
sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental
norms laid down in this Constitution.
40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more
radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails
greater difficulties.
223
Wherefore: 1) The competent territo rial ecclesiastical
authority mentioned in Art. 22, §2, must, in this matter, care
fully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions
and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted
into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful
or necessary should then be submitted to the Apostolic See, by
whose consent they may be introduced.
2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the c ir
cumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power
to this same territo rial ecclesiastical authority to permit and
to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary
experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups
suited for the purpose.
3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties
with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, m en
who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate
them.
IV Promotion of Liturgical Life
In Diocese and Parish
41. The bishop is to be considered as the high priest of his
flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful is in som e
way derived and dependent.
Therefore all should hold in great esteem the liturgical life
of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his
cathedral church; they must be convinced that the pre-eminent
manifestation of the Church consists in the full active par
ticipation of all God's holy people in these liturgical celebra
tions, especially in the same eucharist, in a single prayer, at
one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his
college of priests and by his ministers.35
42. But because it is impossible for the bishop always and
everwhere to preside over the whole flock in his Church, he can
not do other than establish lesser groupings of the faithful.
Am ong these the parishes, set up locally under a pastor who takes
the place of the bishop, are the most important: for in som e
manner they represent the visible Church constituted throughout
the world.
224
And therefore the liturgical life of the parish and its rela
tionship to the bishop must be fostered theoretically and prac
tically am ong the faithful and clergy; efforts also must be made
to encourage a sense of community within the parish, above all in
the com m on celebration of the Sunday Mass.
V The Promotion of Pastoral-Liturgical Action
43. Zeal for the promotion and restoration of the liturgy is
rightly held to be a sign of the providential dispositions of God
in our time, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in his Church. It
is today a distinguishing mark of the Church's life , indeed of
the whole tenor of contemporary religious thought and action.
So that this pastoral-liturgical action may become even more
vigorous in the Church, the sacred Council decrees:
44. It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiasti
cal authority mentioned in Art. 22, §2, set up a liturgical com
mission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred
music, art, and pastoral practice. So far as possible the com
mission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral
Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters,
and including laymen as circumstances suggest. Under the direc
tion of the above-mentioned territo rial ecclesiastical authority
the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action
throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary
experiments whenever there is question of adaptations to be pro
posed to the Apostolic See.
45. For the same reason every diocese is to have a commission on
the sacred liturgy under the direction of the bishop, for pro
moting the liturgical apostolate.
Sometimes it may be expedient that several dioceses should
form between them one single commission which will be able to
promote the liturgy by com m on consultation.
46. Besides the commission on the sacred liturgy, every diocese,
as far as possible, should have commission for sacred music and
sacred art.
These three commissions must work in closest collaboration;
indeed it will often be best to fuse the three of them into one
single commission.
225
CHAPTER II
THE M O ST SACRED MYSTERY
O F THE EUCHARIST
47. At the Last Supper, on the night when he was betrayed, our
Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of his body and
blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the
Cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so
to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his
death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a
bond of charity, 38 a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten,
the mind is fille d with grace, and a pledge of future glory is
given to us.37
48. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's
faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be
there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through
a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take
part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with
devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by
God's word and be nourished at the table of the Lord's body; they
should give thanks to God; by offering the immaculate victim, not
only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they
should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the
Mediator,38 they should be drawn day by day into ever more per
fect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may
be a l1 in a ll.
49. For this reason the sacred Council, having in mind those
Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the faithful,
especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation, has made the
following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even
in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally
efficacious to the fullest degree.
50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the
intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the
connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that
devout and active participation by the faithful may be more
easily achieved.
226
For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care
being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the
passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but
l i t t l e advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which
have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be
restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy
Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.
51. 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. In this way a more representative por
tion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the
course of a prescribed number of years.
52. By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the
guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the
sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the
homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the
liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated
with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obli
gation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason.
53. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to
be restored, after the gospel and the homily, "the com m on prayer"
or "the prayer of the faithful." By this prayer, in which the
people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy
Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various
needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire
world.39
54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable
place may be allotted to their tongue. This is to apply in the
firs t place to the readings and "the com m on prayer," but also, as
local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the
people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this
Constitiiti on.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may
also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of
the ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within
the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40
of this Constitution is to be observed.
227
55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby
the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's
body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.
The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of
Trent remaining intact,40 communion under both kinds may be
granted when the bishops think f i t , not only to clerics and r e l i
gious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the
Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the
Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the
Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in
the Mass which follows their baptism.
56. The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the
Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic
liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form
but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod
strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faith
ful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire
Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation.
57. §1. Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is
appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the
Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has
seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebra
tion to the following cases:
1. a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the
Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass;
b) at Masses during councils, bishops' conferences, and
synods;
c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.
§2. Also with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs
to decide whether concelebration is opportune:
a) at conventual Mass, and at the principal Mass in
churches when the needs of the faithful do not require
that all the priests available should celebrate
individually;
b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests' meetings,
whether the priests be secular clergy or religious.
228
§2.1. The regulation, however, of the discipline of con
celebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop.
2. Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to .
celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in
the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of
the Lord's Supper.
58. A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted
into the Pontifical and into the Rom an Missal.
229
CHAPTER I I I
THE O THER SACRAM ENTS A N D
THE SACRAM ENTALS
59. The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build
up the body of Christ, and fin a lly , to give worship to God;
because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presup
pose faith* but by words and objects they also nourish,
strengthen, and express it ; that is why they are called
"sacraments of fa ith ." They do indeed impart grace, but, in
addition, the very act of celebrating them most effectively
disposes the faith fu l to receive this grace in a fru itfu l manner,
to worship God duly, and to practice charity.
I t is therefore of the highest importance that the faithful
should easily understand the sacramental signs, and should fre
quent with great eagerness those sacraments which were instituted
to nourish the Christian life .
60. Holy Mother Church has, moreover, instituted sacramentals.
These are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the
sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual
kind, which are obtained through the Church's intercession. B y
them m en are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacra
ments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy.
61. Thus, for well-disposed members of the fa ith fu l, the liturgy
of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event
in their lives; they are given access to the stream of divine
grace which flows from the paschal mystery of the passion,
death, and resurrection of Christ, the fount from which all
sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is hardly
any proper use of material things which cannot thus be directed
towards the sanctification of m en and the praise of God.
62. With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the
rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which
have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the
people of today; hence som e changes have become necessary to
adapt them to the needs of our own times. For this reason the
sacred Council decrees as follows concerning th eir revision.
2 30
63. Because the use of the mother tongue in the administration
of the sacraments and sacramentals can often be of considerable
help to the people, this use is to be extended according to the
following norms: a) The vernacular language may be used in admi
nistering the sacraments and sacramentals, according to the norm
of Art. 36. b) In harmony with the new edition of the Rom an
Ritual, particular rituals shall be prepared without delay by the
competent te rrito ria l ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art.
22, §2, of this Constitution. These ritu a ls, which are to be
adapted, also as regards the language employed, to the needs of
the different regions, are to be reviewed by the Apostolic See
and then introduced into the regions for which they have been
prepared. But in drawing up these rituals or particular collec
tions of rite s , the instructions prefixed to the individual rites
in the Rom an Ritual, whether they be pastoral and rubrical or
whether they have special social import, shall not be omitted.
64. The catechumenate for adults, comprising several distinct
steps, is to be restored and to be taken into use at the discre
tion of the local ordinary. By.this means the time of the
catechumenate, which is intended as a period of suitable instruc
tion, may be sanctified by sacred rites to be celebrated at suc
cessive intervals of time.
65. In mission lands it is found that som e of the people already
make use of in itia tio n rite s . Elements from these, when capable
of being adapted to Christian r itu a l, may be admitted along with
those already found in Christian tradition, according to the norm
laid down in Art. 37-40 of this Constitution.
66. Both of the rites for the baptism of adults are to be
revised: not only the simpler r ite , but also the more solemn
one, which must take into account the restored catechumenate. A
special Mass "for the conferring of baptism" is to be inserted
into the Rom an Missal.
67. The r ite for the baptism of infants is to be revised, and it
should be adapted to the circumstance that those to be baptized
are, in fact, infants. The roles of parents and godparents, and
also their duties, should be brought out more clearly in the rite
its e lf.
68. The baptismal rite should contain variants, to be used at
the discretion of the local ordinary, for occasions when a very
231
large number are to be baptized together. Moreover, a shorter
rite is to be drawn up, especially for mission lands, to be used
by catechists, but also by the faithfu l in general when there is
danger of death, and neither priest nor deacon is available.
69. In place of the r ite called the "Order of supplying what was
omitted in the baptism of an infant," a new rite is to be drawn
up. This should manifest more fittin g ly and clearly that the
infant, baptized by the short r ite , has already been received
into the Church.
And a new rite is to be drawn up for converts who have already
been validly baptized; it should indicate that they are now
admitted to communion with the church.
70. Except during Eastertide, baptismal water may be blessed
within the rite of baptism its e lf by an approved shorter formula.
71. The rite of Confirmation is to be revised and the intimate
connection which this sacrament has with the whole of Christian
in itia tio n is to be more clearly set forth; for this reason it is
fittin g for candidates to renew their baptismal promises just
before they are confirmed.
Confirmation may be given within the Mass when convenient;
when i t is given outside the Mass, the rite that is used should
be introduced by a formula to be drawn up for this purpose.
72. The rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are to be
revised so that they more clearly express both the nature and
effect of the sacrament.
73. "Extreme unction," which may also and more fittin g ly be
called "anointing of the sick," is not a sacrament for those only
who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as any one of the
faith fu l begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old
age, the fittin g time for him to receive this sacrament has cer
tain ly already arrived.
74. In addition to the separate rites for anointing of the sick
and for viaticum, a continuous r ite shall be prepared according
to which the sick m an is anointed after he has made his con
fession and before he receives viaticum.
232
75. The number of the anointings is to be adapted to the occa
sion, and the prayers which belong to the rite of anointing are
to be revised so as to correspond with the varying conditions of
the sick who receive the sacrament.
76. Both the ceremonies and texts of the ordination rites are to
be revised. The address given by the bishop at the beginning of
each ordination or consecration may be in the mother tongue.
W hen a bishop is consecrated, the laying on of hands may be
done by a ll the bishops present.
77. The marriage r ite now found in the Rom an Ritual is to be
revised and enriched in such a way that the grace of the sacra
ment is more clearly signified and the duties of the spouses are
taught.
" If any regions are wont to use other praiseworthy customs and
ceremonies when celebrating the sacrament of matrimony, the
sacred Synod earnestly desires that these by all means be
retained."41
Moreover the competent te rrito ria l ecclesiastical authority
mentioned in Art. 22, §2, of this Constitution is free to draw up
its ow n rite suited to the usages of place and people, according
to the provision of Art. 63. But the r ite must always conform to
the law that the priest assisting at the marriage must ask for
and obtain the consent of the contracting parties.
78. Matrimony is normally to be celebrated within the Mass,
after the reading of the gospel and the homily, and before "the
prayer of the fa ith fu l." The prayer for the bride, duly amended
to remind both spouses of their equal obligation to remain fa ith
ful to each other, may be said in the mother tongue.
But i f the sacrament of matrimony is celebrated apart from
Mass, the epistle and gospel from the nuptial Mass are to be read
at the beginning of the r ite , and the blessing should always be
given to the spouses.
79. The sacramentals are to undergo a revision which takes into
account the primary principle of enabling the faithfu l to par
ticipate in tellig en tly, actively, and easily; the circumstances
of our own days must also be considered. W hen rituals are
2 33;
revised, as laid down in Art. 63, new sacramentals may also be
added as the need for these becomes apparent.
Reserved blessings shall be very few; reservations shall be in
favor only of bishops or ordinaries.
Let provision be made that som e sacramentals, at least in spe
cial circumstances and at the discretion of the ordinary, may be
administered by qualified lay persons.
80. The rite for the consecration of virgins at present found in
the Rom an Pontifical is to be revised.
Moreover, a rite of religious profession and renewal of vows
shall be drawn up in order to achieve greater unity, sobriety,
and dignity. Apart from exceptions in particular law, this rite
should be adopted by those who make their profession or renewal
of vows within the Mass.
Religious profession should preferably be made within the
Mass.
81. The rite for the burial of the dead should express more
clearly the paschal character of Christian death, and should
correspond more closely to the circumstances and traditions found
in various regions. This holds good also for the liturgical
color to be used.
82. The rite for the burial of infants is to be revised, and a
special Mass for the occasion should be provided.
234
CHAPTER IV
THE DIVINE OFFICE
83. Christ Jesus, high priest of the new and eternal covenant,
taking hum an nature, introduced into this earthly exile that hym n
which is sung throughout a ll ages in the halls of heaven. He
joins the entire community of mankind to himself, associating it
with his ow n singing of this canticle of divine praise.
For he continues his priestly work through the agency of his
Church, which is ceaselessly engaged in praising the Lord and
interceding for the salvation of the whole world. She does this,
not only by celebrating the eucharist, but also in other ways,
especially by praying the divine office.
84. By tradition going back to early Christian times, the divine
office is devised so that the whole course of the day and night
is made holy by the praises of God. Therefore, when this wonder
ful song of praise is rightly performed by priests and others who
aredeputed for this purpose by the Church's ordinance, or by the
faithfu l praying together with the priest in the approved form,
then it is truly the voice of the bride addressed to her
bridegroom; it is the very prayer which Christ himself, together
with his body, addressed to the Father.
85. Hence a ll who render this service are not only fu lfillin g a
duty of the Church, but also are sharing in the greatest honor of
Christ's spouse, for by offering these praises to God they are
standing before God's throne in the nam e of the Church their
Mother.
86. Priests who are engaged in the sacred pastoral ministry w ill
offer the praises of the hours with greater fervor the more
vividly they realize that they must heed St. Paul's exhortation:
"Pray without ceasing" (1 Thess. 5:17). For the work in which
they labor w ill effect nothing and bring forth no fru it except by
the power of the Lord who said: "Without m e you can do nothing"
(John 15:5). That is why the apostles, instituting deacons,
said" "W e w ill devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of
the word" (Acts 6:4).
2 35
87. In order that the divine office may be better and more per
fectly prayed in existing circumstances, whether by priests or by
other members of the Church, the sacred Council, carrying
further the restoration already so happily begun by the
Apostolic See, has seen f i t to decree as follows concerning the
office of the Rom an r ite .
88. Because the purpose of the office is to sanctify the day,
the traditional sequence of the hours is to be restored so that
once again they m ay be genuinely related to the time of the day
when they are prayed, as far as this may be possible. Moreover,
it w ill be necessary to take into account the modern conditions
in which daily life has to be lived, especially by those who are
called to labor in apostolic works.
89. Therefore, when the office is revised, these norms are to be
observed: a) By the venerable tradition of the universal
Church, Lauds as morning prayer and Vespers as evening prayer are
the two hinges on which the daily office turns; hence they are to
be considered as the chief hours and are to be celebrated as
such, b) Compline is to be drawn up so that it w ill be a
suitable prayer for the end of the day. c) The hour known as
Matins, although it should retain the character of nocturnal
praise when celebrated in choir, shall be adapted so that it m ay
be recited at any hour of the day; it shall be m ade up of fewer
psalms and longer readings, d) The hour of Prime is to be
suppressed, e) In choir the minor hours of Terce, Sext, and None
are to be observed. But outside choir it w ill be lawful to
select any one of these three, according to the respective time
of the day.
90. The divine office, because it is the public prayer of the
Church, is a source .of piety and nourishment for personal prayer.
And therefore priests and a ll others who take part in the divine
office are earnestly exhorted in the Lord to attune their minds
to their voices when praying i t . The better to achieve th is, let
them take steps to improve their understanding of the liturgy and
of the bible, especially of the psalms.
In revising the Rom an office, its ancient and venerable
treasures are to be so adapted that a ll those to w hom they are
handed on may more extensively and easily draw profit from them.
91. So that it may really be possible in practice to observe the
course of the hours proposed in Art. 89, the psalms are no longer
236
to be distributed throughout the week, but through som e longer
period of time. The work of revising the psalter, already hap
p ily begun, is to be finished as soon as possible, and is to take
into account the style of Christian Latin, the liturgical use of
psalms, also when sung, and the entire tradition of the Latin
Church.
92. As regards the readings, the following shall be observed:
a) Readings from sacred scripture shall be arranged so that the
riches of God's word may be easily accessible in more abundant
measure, b) Readings excerpted from the works of the fathers,
doctors, and ecclesiastical writers shall be better selected, c)
The accounts of martyrdom or the lives of the saints are to
accord with the facts of history.
93. To whatever extent may seem desirable, the hymns are to be
restored to their original form, and whatever smacks of mythology
or i l l accords with Christian piety is to be removed or changed.
Also, as occasion may arise, let other selections from the
treasury of hymns be incorporated.
94. That the day may be tru ly santified, and that the hours
themselves may be recited with spiritual advantage, it is best
that each of them be prayed at a time which most closely corres
ponds with its true canonical time.
95. Communities obliged to choral office are bound to celebrate
the office in choir every day in addition to the conventual Mass.
In particular: a) Orders of canons, of monks and of nuns, and of
other regulars bound by law or constitions to choral office must
celebrate the entire office, b) Cathedral or collegiate chapters
are bound to recite those parts of the office imposed on them by
general or particular law. c) All members of the above com
munities w ho are in major orders or who are solemnly professed,
except for lay brothers, are bound to recite individually those
canonical hours which they do not pray in choir.
96. Clerics not bound to office in choir, i f they are in major
orders, are bound to pray the entire office every day, either in
com m on or individually, as laid down in Art. 89.
97. Appropriate instances are to be defined by the rubrics in
which a liturgical service may be substituted for the divine
office.
2 3.7
In particular cases, and for a just reason, ordinaries can
dispense their subjects wholly or in part from the obligation of
reciting the divine office, or may commute the obligation.
98. Members of any institute dedicated to acquiring perfection
who, according to their constitutions, are to recite any parts of
the divine office are thereby performing the public prayer of the
Church.
They too perform the public prayer of the Church who, in v ir
tue of their constitutions, recite any short office, provided
this is drawn up after the pattern of the divine office and is
duly approved.
99. Since the divine office is the voice of the Church, that is,
of the whole mystical body publicly praising God, those clerics
who are not obliged to office in choir, especially priests who
live together or who assemble for any purpose, are urged to pray
at least som e part of the divine office in common.
All who pray the divine office, whether in choir or in common,
should f u l f i l l the task entrusted to them as perfectly as
possible; this refers not only to the internal devotion of their
minds but also to their external manner of celebration.
I t is, moreover, fittin g that the office, both in choir and in
common, be sung when possible.
100. Pastors of souls should see to it that the chief hours,
especially Vespers, are celebrated in com m on in church on Sundays
and the more solemn feasts. And the la ity , too, are encouraged
to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or am ong
themselves, or even individually.
101. §1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the
Latin r ite , the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in
the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the
power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those
clerics for w hom the use .of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to
their praying the office properly. The vernacular version,
however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision
of Art. 36.
§2. The competent superior has the power to grant the use of
the the vernacular in the celebration of the divine office, even
2 38
in choir, to nuns and to members of institutes dedicated to
acquiring perfection, both m en who are not clerics and women.
The version, however, must be one that is approved.
§3. Any cleric bound to the divine office f u lf ills his o b li
gation i f he prays the office in the vernacular together with a
group of the faithfu l or with those mentioned in §2 above, pro
vided that the text of the translation is approved.
239
CHAPTER V
THE LITURGICAL Y EA R
102. Holy Mother Church is conscious that she must celebrate the
saving work of her divine Spouse by devoutly recalling it on cer
tain days throughout the course of the year. Every week, on the
day which she has called the Lord's day, she keeps the memory of
the Lord's resurrection, which she also celebrates once in the
year, together with his blessed passion, in the most solemn
festival of Easter.
Within the cycle of a year, moreover, she unfolds the whole
mystery of Christ, from the incarnation and birth until the
ascension, the day of Pentecost, and the expectation of blessed
hope and of the coming of the Lord.
Recalling thus the mysteries of redemption, the church opens
to the faithfu l the riches of her Lord's powers and merits, so
that these are in som e way made present for a ll time, and the
faithfu l are enabled to lay hold upon them and become fille d with
saving grace.
103. In celebrating this annual cycle of Christ's mysteries,
holy Church honors with especial love the Blessed Mary, Mother of
God, who is joined by an inseparable bond to the saving work of
her Son, In her the Church holds up and admires the most
excellent fru it of the redemption, and joyfully contemplates, as
in a faultless image, that which she herself desires and hopes
wholly to be.
104. The Church has also included in the annual cycle days
devoted to the memory of the martyrs and the other saints.
Raised up to perfection by the manifold grace of God, and already
in possession of eternal salvation, they sing God's perfect
praise in heaven and offer prayers for us. By celebrating the
passage of these saints from earth to heaven the Church proclaims
the paschal mystery achieved in the saints who have suffered and
been glorified with Christ; she proposes them to the faithfu l as
examples drawing a ll to the Father through Christ, and through
their merits she pleads for God's favors.
105. Finally, in the various seasons of the year and according
to her traditional discipline, the Church completes the formation
240
of the faithful by means of pious practices for soul and body, by
instruction, prayer, and works of penance and of mercy.
Accordingly the sacred Council has seen f i t to decree as
follows:
106. By a tradition handed down from the apostles which took its
origin from the very day of Christ's resurrection, the Church
celebrates the paschal mystery every eighth day; with good reason
this, then, bears the name of the Lord's day or Sunday. For on
this day Christ's faith fu l should com e together into one place so
that, by hearing the word of God and taking part in the
eucharist, they may call to mind the passion, the resurrection,
and the glorification of the Lord Jesus, and may thank God who
"has begotten them again,-through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead, unto a living hope" (1 Pet. 1:3). Hence
the Lord's day is the original feast day, and it should be pro
posed to the piety of the faith fu l and taught to them so that it
may become in fact a day of joy and of freedom from work. Other
celebrations, unless they be tru ly of greatest importance, shall
not have precedence over the Sunday which is the foundation and
kernel of the whole liturgical year.
107. The liturgical year is to be revised so that the tra d i
tional customs and discipline of the sacred seasons shall be pre
served or restored to suit the conditions of modern times; their
specific character is to be retained, so that they duly nourish
the piety of the faith fu l who celebrate the mysteries of
Christian redemption, and above a ll the paschal mystery. If cer
tain adaptations are considered necessary on account of local
conditions, they are to be made in accordance with the provisions
of Art. 39 and 40.
108. The minds of the faith fu l must be directed primarily
towards the feasts of the Lord whereby the mysteries of salvation
are celebrated in the course of the year. Therefore, the proper
of the time shall be given the preference which is its due over
the feasts of the saints, so that the entire cycle of the
mysteries of salvation may be suitable recalled.
109. The season of Lent has a twofold character: primarily by
recalling or preparing for baptism and by penance, it disposes
the fa ith fu l, who more diligently hear the word of G od and devote
themselves to prayer, to celebrate the paschal mystery. This
241
twofold character is to be brought into greater prominence both
in the liturgy and by liturgical catechesis. Hence: a) More use
is to be made of the baptismal features proper to the Lenten
liturgy; som e of them, which used to flourish in bygone days, are
to be restored as may seem good, b) The sam e is to apply to the
penitential elements. As regards instruction it is important to
impress on the minds of the faith fu l not only the social con
sequences of sin but also that essence of the virtue of penance
which leads to the detestation of sin as an offence against God;
the role of the Church in penitential practices is not to be
passed over, and the people must be exhorted to pray for sinners.
110. During Lent penance should not be only internal and indivi
dual, but also external and social. The practice of penance
should be fostered in ways that are possible in our own times and
in different regions, and according to the circumstances of the
fa ith fu l; it should be encouraged by the authorities mentioned in
Art. 22.
Nevertheless, let the paschal fast be kept sacred. Let it be
celebrated everywhere on Good Friday and, where possible, pro
longed throughout Holy Saturday, so that the joys of the Sunday
of the resurrection may be attained with uplifted and clear mind.
111. The saints have been trad itio n ally honored in the Church
and their authentic relics and images held in veneration. For
the feasts of the saints proclaim the wonderful works of Christ
in his servants, and display to the faith fu l fittin g examples for
their imitation.
Lest the feasts of the saints should take precedence over the
feasts which commemorate the very mysteries of salvation, many of
them should be le ft to be celebrated by a particular church or
nation or family of religious; only those should be extended to
the universal Church which commemorate saints who are tru ly of
universal importance.
242
CHAPTER VI
SACRED MUSIC
112. The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure
of inestimable value, greater than that of any other a rt. The
main reason for this preeminence is that, as sacred song united
to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn
liturgy.
Holy scripture, indeed, has bestowed praise upon sacred
song,42 and the sam e may be said of the fathers of the Church
and of the Rom an pontiffs who in recent times, led by St. Pius X,
have explained more precisely the ministerial function supplied
by sacred music in the service of the Lord.
Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in
proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical
action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of
minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rite s . But
the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed
qualities, and admits them into divine worship.
Accordingly, the sacred Council, keeping to the norms and pre
cepts of ecclesiastical tradition and discipline, and having
regard to the purpose of sacred music, which is the glory of G od
and the sanctification of the fa ith fu l, decrees as follows.
113. Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when the
divine offices are celebrated solemnly in song, with the
assistance of sacred ministers and the active participation of
the people.
As regards the language to be used, the provisions of Art. 36
are to be observed; for the Mass, Art. 54; for the sacraments,
Art. 63; for the divine office, Art. 101.
114. The treasury of sacred music is to be preserved and
fostered with great care. Choirs must be diligently promoted,
especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors
of souls must be at pains to ensure that, whenever the sacred
action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the
faithfu l may be able to contribute that active participation
which is rightly theirs, as laid down in Art. 28 and 30.
2 43
115. Great importance is to be attached to the teaching and
practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of
study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic
institutions and schools. To impart this instruction, teachers
are to be carefully trained and put in charge of the teaching of
sacred music.
I t is desirable also to found higher institutes of sacred
music whenever this can be done.
Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a
genuine liturgical training.
116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited
to the Rom an liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it
should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by
no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they
accord with the s p irit of the liturgical action, as laid down in
Art. 30.
117. The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to
be completed; and a more c ritic a l edition is to be prepared of
those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius
X.
It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing
simpler melodies, for use in small churches.
118. Religious singing by the people is to be s k ilfu lly
fostered, so that in devotions and sacred exercises, as also
during litu rg ical services, the voices of the faithfu l may ring
out according to the norms and requirements of the rubrics.
119. In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands,
there are people who have their own musical traditions, and these
play a great part in their religious and social life . For this
reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a
suitable place is to be given to i t , not only in forming their
attitude towards religion, but also in adapting worship to their
native genius, as indicated in Art. 39 and 40.
Therefore, when missionaries are being given training in
music, every effort should be m ade to see that they become com
244
petent in promoting the traditional music of these people, both
in schools and in sacred services, as far as may be practicable.
120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high
esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a
wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully
lift s up man's mind to G od and to higher things.
But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine
worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent t e r r i
to rial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, §2, 37, and 40. This
may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are
suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with
the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edifica
tion of the fa ith fu l.
121. Composers, fille d with the Christian s p irit, should feel
that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its
store of treasures.
Let them produce compositions which have the qualities proper
to genuine sacred music, not confining themselves to works which
can be sung only by large choirs, but providing also for the
needs of small choirs and for the active participation of the
entire assembly of the fa ith fu l.
The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity
with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from
holy scripture and from liturgical sources.
2 45
CHAPTER VII
SA CR ED ART A N D SACRED FURNISHINGS
122. Very rightly the fine arts are considered to rank am ong the
noblest activities of man's genius, and this applies especially
to religious art and to its highest achievement, which is sacred
a rt. These arts, by their very nature, are oriented towards the
in fin ite beauty of God which they attempt in som e way to portray
by the work of hum an hands; they achieve their purpose of
redounding to God's praise and glory in proportion as they are
directed the more exclusively to the single aim of turning men's
minds devoutly towards God.
Holy Mother Church has therefore always been the friend of the
fine arts and has ever sought their noble help, with the special
aim that all things set apart for use in divine worship should be
tru ly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the
supernatural world, and for this purpose she has trained a rtis ts .
In fact, the Church has, with good reason, always reserved to
herself the right to pass judgment upon the arts, deciding which
of the works of artists are in accordance with fa ith , piety, and
cherished traditional laws, and thereby fitte d for sacred use.
The Church has been particularly careful to see that sacred
furnishings should worthily and beautifully serve the dignity of
worship, and has admitted changes in materials, style, or orna
mentation prompted by the progress of the technical arts with the
passage of time.
Wherefore it has pleased the Fathers to issue the following
decrees on these matters.
123. The Church has not adopted any particular sytle of art as
her very own; she has admitted styles from every period according
to the natural talents and circumstances of peoples, and the
needs of the various rite s . Thus, in the course of the cen
turies, she has brought into being a treasury of art which must
be very carefully preserved. The art of our own days, coming
from every race and region, shall also be given free scope in the
Church, provided that it adorns the sacred buildings and holy
rites with due reverence and honor; thereby it is enabled to
contribute its ow n voice to that wonderful chorus of praise in
honor of the Catholic faith sung by great m en in times gone by.
246
124. Ordinaries, by the encouragement and favor they show to art
which is truly sacred, should strive after noble beauty rather
than mere sumptuous display. This principle is to apply also in
the matter of sacred vestments and ornaments.
Let bishops carefully remove from the house of god and from
other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to
fa ith , morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true r e l i
gious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of a rtis tic
worth, mediocrity and pretense.
And when churches are to be b u ilt, let great care be taken
that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services
and for the active participation of the fa ith fu l.
125. The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that
they may be venerated by the faithfu l is to be maintained.
Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative
positions should reflect right order. For otherwise they m ay
create confusion am ong the Christian people and foster devotion
of doubtful orthodoxy.
126. W hen passing judgment on works of a rt, local ordinaries
shall give a hearing to the diocesan commission on sacred art
and, i f needed, also to others who are especially expert, and to
the commissions referred to in Art. 44, 45, and 46.
Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings
and works of value are not disposed of or dispersed; for they are
the ornaments of the house of God.
127. Bishops should have a special concern for a rtists, so as to
imbue them with the s p irit of sacred art and of the sacred
liturgy. This they may do in person or through suitable priests
who are gifted with a knowledge and love of art.
I t is also desirable that schools or academies of sacred art
should be founded in those parts of the world where they would be
useful, so that artists may be trained.
All artists who, prompted by their talents, desire to serve
God's glory in holy Church, should ever bear in mind that they
are engaged in a kind of sacred imitation of G od the Creator, and
are concerned with works destined to be used in Catholic worship,
247
to edify the fa ith fu l, and to foster their piety and their r e li
gious formation.
128. Along with the revision of the liturgical books, as laid
down in Art. 25, there is to be an early revision of the canons
and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of
material things involved in sacred worship. These laws refer
especially to the worthy and well planned.construction of sacred
buildings, the shape and construction of altars, the no b ility,
placing, and safety of the eucharistic tabernacle, the dignity
and su itab ility of the baptistery, the proper ordering of sacred
images, embellishments, and vestments.
129. During their philosophical and theological studies, clerics
are to be taught about the history and development of sacred a rt,
and about the sound principles governing the production of its
works. In consequence they w ill be able to appreciate and pre
serve the Church's venerable monuments,T and be in a position to
aid, by good advice, artists who are engaged in producing works
of art.
130. I t is fittin g that the use of pontificals be reserved to
those ecclesiastical persons who have episcopal rank or som e par
ticu lar jurisdiction.
,248
APPENDIX
A DECLARATION O F THE SEC O N D
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL O F THE VATICAN
O N REVISION O F THE CALENDAR
The Second Ecumenical Sacred Council of the Vatican, recognizing
the importance of the wishes expressed by many concerning the
assignment of the feast of Easter to a fixed Sunday and con
cerning an unchanging calendar, having carefully considered the
effects which could result from the introduction of a new calen
dar, declares, as follows:
1. The sacred Council would not object if the feast of Easter
were assigned to a particular Sunday of the Gregorian Calendar,
provided that those w hom it may concern, especially the brethren
who are not in communion with the Apostolic See, give their
assent.
2. The sacred Council likewise declares that it does not oppose
efforts designed to introduce a perpetual calendar into civil
society.
But, am ong the various systems which are being suggested to
stabilize a perpetual calendar and to introduce it into civil
life , the Church has no objection only in the case of those
systems which retain and safeguard a seven-day week with Sunday,
without the introduction of any days outside the week, so that
the succession of weeks may be le ft intact, unless there is
question of most serious reasons. Concerning these the Apostolic
See shall judge.
249
In the nam e of the most holy and undivided T rin ity, the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy S p irit. The Decrees, which
have now been read in this Sacred and Universal Second Vatican
Synod lawfully assembled, have pleased the Fathers.
And We, by the Apostolic power given to Us by Christ, together
with the venerable Fathers approve, enact, and establish these
Decrees in the Holy Spirit and com m and that what has been thus
established in the Synod be promulgated unto the glory of God.
PAU L PP. VI
December 4, 1963
250
N O TES TO INTRODUCTION
^Secret of the ninth Sunday after Pentecost.
2cf. Heb. 13:14.
3Cf. Eph. 2:21-22.
4Cf. Eph. 4:13.
5cf. Is. 11:12.
8Cf. John 11:52.
7Cf. John 10:16.
8Cf. Is. 61:1; Luke 4:18.
9St. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 7, 2.
10Cf. 1 Tim. 2:5.
Usacramentarium Veronese (ed. Mohlberg), n. 1265; cf. also n.
1241, 1248.
^Easter Preface of the Rom an Missal.
l 3Prayer before the second lesson for Holy Saturday, as it was in
the Rom an Missal before the restoration of Holy Week.
14Cf. Mark 16:15.
18Cf. Acts 26:18.
l^Cf. Rom . 6:4; Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1, 2 Tim. 2:11.
l 7Cf. John 4:23.
18Cf. 1 Cor. 11:26.
l 9Council of Trent, Session X III, Decree on the Holy Eucharist,
c.5.
■ 251
^council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice
of the Mass, c.2.
21cf. St. Augustine, Tractatus in Ioannem, VI, n.7.
22cf. Apoc. 21:2; Col. 3:1; Heb. 8:2.
23Cf. Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:4.
2^Cf. John 17:3; Luke 24:27; Acts 2:38.
25cf. Matt. 28:20.
26postcommunion for both Masses on Easter Sunday.
27collect of the Mass for Tuesday of Easter Week.
28Cf. 2 Cor. 6:1.
29cf. Matt. 6:6.
30Cf. 1 Thess. 5:17.
31Cf. 2 Cor. 4:10-11
32Secret for Monday of Pentecost Week.
33St. Cyprian, O n the Unity of the Catholic Church, 7; cf.
66, n. 8, 3.
Letter
34Cf. Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrine on the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass, c. 8.
38Cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Smyrnians, 8; To the
Magnesians, 7; To the Philadelphians, 4.
38Cf. St. Augustine, Tractatus in Ioannem, VI, n. 13.
37Rom an Breviary, feast of Corpus Christi, Second Vespers,
antiphon to the Magnificat.
38Cf. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John,
book XI, chap. XI-X11: Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 74, 557-564.
252
39Cf. 1 Tim. 2:1-2.
40sess ion XXI, July 16, 1562. Doctrine on Communion under both
Species, chap. 1-3: Conci1ium Tridentinum. Diariorum, Actorum,
Epistolarum, Tractatuum nova collectio, ed.Soc. Goerresiana,
tome V III (Freiburg im Br., 1919), 698-699.
^Council of Trent, Session XXIV, November 11, 1563, O n Reform,
chap I. Cf. Rom an Ritual, t it l e V III, chap. I I , n.6.
42Cf. Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16..

Linked assets