Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 63

Vatican website translation:

63. Because of 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 administering the sacraments and sacramentals, according to the norm of Art. 36.
b) In harmony with the new edition of the Roman Ritual, particular rituals shall be prepared without delay by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, of this Constitution. These rituals, 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 collections of rites, the instructions prefixed to the individual rites the Roman Ritual, whether they be pastoral and rubrical or whether they have special social import, shall not be omitted.

Latin text:

63. Cum haud raro in administratione Sacramentorum et Sacramentalium valde utilis esse possit apud populum linguae vernaculae usurpatio, amplior locus huic tribuatur, iuxta normas quae sequuntur:
a) In administratione Sacramentorum et Sacramentalium lingua vernacula adhiberi potest ad normam art. 36;
b) Iuxta novam Ritualis romani editionem, Ritualia particularia, singularum regionum necessitatibus, etiam quoad linguam, accommodata, a competenti ecclesiastica auctoritate territoriali de qua in art. 22 § 2 huius Constitutionis quam primum parentur, et, actis ab Apostolica Sede recognitis, in regionibus ad quas pertinet adhibeantur. In iis autem Ritualibus vel peculiaribus Collectionibus rituum conficiendis, ne omittantur instructiones, in Rituali romano singulis ritibus praepositae, sive pastorales et rubricales, sive quae peculiare momentum sociale habent.

Slavishly literal translation:

Since by no means rarely the making use of vernacular language among the people could be exceedingly useful in the administration of the Sacraments and Sacramentals, a more ample place is to be given to it, according to the norms that follow:

a) In the administration of the Sacraments and of the Sacramentals vernacular language can be used according to the norm found in article 36;
b) In accordance with the new edition of the Roman Ritual, particular Rituals, adapted to the needs of individual regions, including that of language, are to be prepared as soon as possible by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority (concerning which see art. 22 § 2 of this Constitution), and, with the acts [for creating the rituals] having been reviewed by the Apostolic See, they are to be followed in the regions to which it pertains. However in preparing these Rituals or particular Collections of rites, the instructions prefacing the individual rites in the Roman Ritual are not to be omitted, whether pastoral or rubrical or they hold particular social importance.

Following the general permission to extend the use of vernacular languages in Roman Catholic worship found in SC 36, we have already seen its application to the celebration of Mass in SC 54. Here the Council Fathers extend the use of the vernacular in the administration of the other Sacraments and Sacramentals. As in SC 36, the responsibility for overseeing vernacular editions of ritual books for celebrating the Sacraments and Sacramentals is given to territorial bishops’ conferences, with the Apostolic See making sure that the processes by which these rituals are produced and decreed normative are properly followed. It is interesting to compare the parallel phrase in SC 36 §3 (“actis ab Apostolica Sede probatis seu confimatis” / “acts/deeds tested/approved or confirmed by the Apostolic See”) with the phrase here (“actis ab Apostolica Sede recognitis” / “acts/deeds reviewed/examined by the Apostolic See”). Pray Tell readers may wish to explore how the term “recognitio” has shifted in practice over the last fifty years from “review” of territorial bishops’ conferences work to “approval” of that work.

Michael Joncas

Ordained in 1980 as a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN, Fr. (Jan) Michael Joncas holds degrees in English from the (then) College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, and in liturgical studies from the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN and the Pontificio Istituto Liturgico of the Ateneo S. Anselmo in Rome. He has served as a parochial vicar, a campus minister, and a parochial administrator (pastor). He is the author of six books and more than two hundred fifty articles and reviews in journals such as Worship, Ecclesia Orans, and Questions Liturgiques. He has composed and arranged more than 300 pieces of liturgical music. He has recently retired as a faculty member in the Theology and Catholic Studies departments and as Artist in Residence and Research Fellow in Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

29 responses to “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 63”

  1. Peter Haydon

    Father
    I do not get the impression that SC was written as a legal text for which care was taken that only one possible meaning could be attributed: the various discussions as to what the different articles means may bear me out here. If I am right then there may be no importance to attach to the distinction you draw between “approval” and “review” by the Holy See.

    Now article 63 here, which approves the use of vernacular, refers us back to article 36 which begins by reaffirming the use of Latin. Oh!

    Also I note that the rituals are to be adapted “also as regards the language” which suggests that the change is not confined to the translation but may include other matters.

    Finally my CTS edition ends the first paragraph saying of the vernacular that: “it is only right that some considerable place should be given to it…”. This seems to imply more than either your “extended” use or “more ample place”.
    It seems to me that the use of the the vernacular is described to be more extensive in the sacraments than in the cases described in article 36 (2). Is this just a lack of precision in drafting I wonder.

    Reply
  2. Bill deHaas

    Peter – you need a different approach to reading SC. Each article does not carry the same weight nor are they each equal.
    SC is set up such that it lays out primary liturgical principles first – then, each principle is followed by a series of articles (some have a couple of articles; some have multiple articles).
    Experts and actual participants have left notes indicating that some articles were obviously *compromise* statements – they were not intended to be literally and completely implemented (in fact, some articles almost contradict each other); rather, they were statements that reflected historical, current, and future use based upon the use of liturgical judgment that applied the overarching principles.
    You appear to not understand the change in SC that deliberately used language to intend that territorial authorities (episcopal conferences) would approve liturgical decisions (such as the use of vernacular, translations, etc.) and Rome would only approve. (no, you are not right).
    Go back to last September when Fr. Joncas began posting SC – check out article 3 (Sept. 24th) or article 5 – to quote:

    “Articles 5 – 13 provide a general theological consideration of the nature of the liturgy and its efficacy (5-7 [10]) and its importance in the life of the Church (8-13). Article 5 announces the centrality of Christ in salvation history, foreshadowed in the history and prophetic ministry of the Jewish people and extended by the Church. I will quote here Cyprian Vagaggini’s commentary on a central theological concept in article 5 – the paschal mystery; as a peritus working on the document, his insights are, I believe, especially valuable in trying to determine what the Council Fathers intended”

    You might want to read: “The Commentary on the Constitution and On the Instruction on the Sacred Liturgy (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1965)”

    Additional: article 21 – The title of Chapter One reminds us of the focus the Council Fathers brought to this section of the Constitution: “Concerning the…

    Reply
    1. Scott Smith

      @Bill deHaas – comment #2:

      Bill,

      Your approach appears to the privileging the agenda some participants brought to the Council over what the Council actually agreed to.

      If we ignore compromise statements, and just implement those statements which reflect a agenda we support, we may as well not have had a Council.

      Reply
      1. Bill deHaas

        @Scott Smith – comment #3:
        Again, you repeat the *usual* approach that Peter and other traditionalists have appealed to. It ignores the actual notes, the acta and debates that were recorded, the whys for various votes, and it continues to treat every article as if it has the same weight when SC was actually developed, written, and voted on as expressed in its own articles – principles, directives, etc.
        It leaves us with the very danger that we see here – someone can pick and choose a specific article and interpret it completely out of context.
        One other note – am not *ignoring* compromise statements – what I am doing is understanding how these were developed, what was said in terms of voting to approve them, and what was intended in terms of directives, etc.
        e.g. Paul Inwood has repeatedly on PTB explained the history of the article on latin as historically pre-eminent. (would suggest that you read this incorrectly and out of context – you read it in a fundamentalist and literal stance)

      2. Stanislaus Kosala

        Don’t you think that the fact that we need historical critical scholarship to unearth the true meaning of the council texts means that their time has passed? I mean, the council fathers never voted on the accounts of the council themselves, and even those accounts could be open to interpretation. If the documents aren’t intelligible on their own, then how can they be useful to anyone except those with a historical interest in them?

      3. Scott Smith

        @Bill deHaas – comment #5:

        Bill,

        We are total agreement on the need to read the document in context, and that not every word has the same weight.

        However, the interplay of the articles themselves is important, and modifies meaning.

        While the documents contains statements of key principles, to the extent more practical articles seem contra-indicative, this changes / contextualises nature of the principles.

        That is, the more important articles do not override the less important articles. Instead, the more important articles provide core meanings, and the less important articles provide modifications to those meanings.

        For example, I might hold socialism to be a bad thing, but be a big fan of public healthcare. This is not just a practical matter, but changes the nature of my underlying understanding of how a nation state should operate.

      4. Bill deHaas

        @Scott Smith – comment #13:
        Understand what you are saying – we will just have to agree to disagree – esp. your explanation of important/less important articles. It still leaves you with the pick and choose what is most important – SC wasn’t laid out that way.
        e.g. latin was not a principle; not a directive; and there is divided opinion upon whether it is a guideline or how much stress this guideline gets when the principle is full, active, complete participation. Your example on socialism/public health limps badly as applied to SC and its interpretation.

        Sorry, Fr. Joncas – was merely saying thanks for your follow up – nothing more; nothing less. And enjoyed that the deacon didn’t qualify my comments.

      5. Scott Smith

        @Bill deHaas – comment #15:

        I think, at least in this instance, we agree what are the important/less important articles.

        The principle, the important article, is indeed “full, active, complete participation”. However the less important article, regarding the use of latin, has to impact on our understanding of what “full, active, complete participation” means.

        That is, our understanding of “full, active, complete participation” can not demand latin be abandoned. Ultimately, if our understanding of the principles of SC cause us problems with how they have been applied to practical matters in SC itself, we can not have understood its principles.

        In this way, we are protected from the instinct to cherry pick, and are able to treat SC in a contextual and holistic way.

        BTW, Sorry if the analogy did’nt work, it was a bit of a leap.

      6. Bill deHaas

        @Scott Smith – comment #18:
        Again, you miss the point. Your statement elevates the article on latin way out of proportion to what it was intended to mean or do. Full, active, complete participation can happen without any latin…think 3rd world countries and mission lands….that was the point of SC. And, sorry, but latin just may not be used…latin is not the core of liturgy; in fact, liturgy was in languages that were not latin for centuries….does that mean the church failed in the first centuries because it did not have latin? Your argument is circular and fails to take into consideration liturgical and linguistic developments. Latin is not an end…..like all languages, it is a tool of liturgy only. (and like aramaic, greek, etc. latin is necessary when doing exegesis, understanding history, etc. but liturgy is not an exegesis nor is it a museum)

      7. Scott Smith

        @Bill deHaas – comment #20:

        Huh? I am not arguing in favour of some form of the trilingual heresy, which it what you seem to be suggesting.

        I am just arguing that, if we follow SC, Latin in itself is not inconsistent with full, active, complete participation (though a completely / majority Latin mass might be in many / most circumstances).

        I would also suggest Latin has a worth in the liturgy, in terms of the sign of communion and unity it provides with those throughout the world and through a large chuck of history. This value would be just as important in a mission land as one with a history of Latin.

      8. Ben Dunlap

        @Bill deHaas – comment #20:

        Just to clarify — you’re referring to SC 36, the article to which SC 63 refers? Here’s the beginning: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” The rest of 36 is devoted to extending general permission for vernacular translations. Every other mention of the vernacular in SC refers back to 36.

        Three thoughts:

        1) SC 36 is located under the heading “Norms based upon the didactic and pastoral nature of the Liturgy”. The norms relating to FACP are located under the heading “Norms drawn from the hierarchic and communal nature of the liturgy”.

        Given this division, it’s not obvious that the Council Fathers thought language and FACP had anything at all to do with each other.

        2) You’ve mentioned principles, guidelines, and directives — which one of those maps to the term “norms” used in the document? Or is it not that simple?

        3) Of course SC 36.1 applies only to Latin liturgies and their foreseen translations. It says so expressly. No one could, or does, cite SC 36.1 to claim that modern Melkites ought to start using Latin, or that 2nd-century Greeks ought to have done so.

        4) Reading SC 36.1, 54, and 101.1 together, it seems impossible to me to conclude that the Council Fathers envisioned or desired the situation we have today — one in which the use of Latin is entirely absent from almost every celebration of Latin-rite liturgies.

        You seem to be arguing, though, that one *must* read the text in a way that supports today’s reality. Or am I just misunderstanding you?

      9. Bill deHaas

        @Ben Dunlap – comment #24:
        Thanks, Ben and this may also answer Peter, again:
        a) norms – same as directives or guidelines. (norms gets us back to STBDTR – some interpret, use, and implement norms in a pastoral sense; others use them as if they are laws set in concrete…not sure this helps clarify things)
        b) SC 36.1 – agree with your meaning (all western rite liturgies were in latin (with some exceptions)) So, not sure this clarifies things….
        c) you say….”reading SC 36.1, 54, and 101.1 seems impossible to conclude the situation we have today” Here is where we disagree – it is NOT impossible to envision the situation we have today because episcopal conferences (especially in mission lands), etc. have followed the primary principles to make pastoral judgments such that you might have a liturgy with no latin in it.
        IMO, your statement that *almost every celebration* is absent latin is a glaring exaggeration based upon region, cultures, history, etc. For example, can attend any liturgy on a typical week-end in Dallas, TX and most every liturgy will have some latin in it – whether it be commons, a hymn, or even in a homily reference. Significant feasts and liturgical seasons always include some latin (e.g. Holy Week, Easter Vigil, Advent, Christmas, Easter Sundays, if baptism is celebrated in a liturgy). And you will find this in english, spanish, bilingual, or vietnamese masses. And yes, there may be times when the liturgy has no latin (for me that is not a negative or failing….OTOH, it may mean that the parish has not made the effort to include, learn, or appreciate the value of latin but that is a choice. Just as Greek gradually faded from the liturgy; it is possible that latin will also over generations).

        Where we disagree is that, IMO, SC’s principles can lead to liturgies that have no latin for passtoral reasons….where parishes have a history musically, liturgically find that latin is incorporated pastorally and wisely to support FACP. Sorry, your statement that the council fathers did not think language and FACP had anything to do with each other leads me to think that you are misreading SC…..IMO, you can make that statement when you *cherry pick* and take certain articles out of context; or deem them more important; etc.

        #23 – Scott Smith – agree wholeheartedly with your comment

        #25 – Peter – would suggest that much of SC was a *compromise* when you read the Acta, the minutes of preparatory meetings, changes and revisions that Paul VI wanted to achieve a united vote, etc. Various articles and sections were voted on during the long process – not just the final vote that overwhelmingly approved SC. That being said, folks such as Paul Inwood (as Fr. Joncas has posted each article) and others have commented when a specific article had a documented history that indicated more *compromise* than other articles.

      10. Peter Haydon

        @Bill deHaas – comment #26:
        Thank you Bill
        I am sure that much of the document is a compromise at least in the sense that different participants would have worded things differently but they accepted the need to have an agreed text. I doubt that this is what you mean.
        I think that what you have written could be taken as meaning that SC is not particularly useful given that “much of SC was a *compromise*” of statements that “were not intended to be literally and completely implemented”.

        That is, of course putting bits of your comments 2 and 26 together but seems to be reinforced in your comment 10 which seems to say that it is a wrong approach that “treats each article as if it is literally true – when, in fact, most articles are guidelines or directives under an overarching principle.”

        The question that this leaves open is who can make an authoritative analysis of which parts were to be implemented and which ignored.

        Similarly if I suspect that your comment 2 that: SC “deliberately used language to intend that territorial authorities (episcopal conferences) would approve liturgical decisions (such as the use of vernacular, translations, etc.) and Rome would only approve,” leaves open the theoretical possibility of liturgy being completely different in different parts of the world as each episcopal conference went its separate way.

        Perhaps at the end of this series there will be a chance to consider the document as a whole and that will be a good moment to consider these points properly. I suspect that a number of readers would argue against your approach.

        In the meantime Fr Michael’s observation, 9, that “the Council documents are patient of multiple interpretations” suggests that an attempt to tease out the possible meanings article by article will be instructive.

      11. Bill deHaas

        @Peter Haydon – comment #27:
        Again, you misread to fit your own ideas. My comments clearly were about the total SC document – your initial paragraph is correct.
        But most of the rest of what you wrote is your imagination or projections. And, yes, an authoritative analysis of SC has been done by many peer reviewed experts (but this doesn’t stop folks such as you from projection, picking and choosing, etc.)

        SC did deliberately use language that intended territorial authorities to approve liturgical decisions and Rome only approved. Does this leave open the theoretical possiblity of liturgy being completely different in parts of the world as conferences make good pastoral decisions – not really, this is a typical *shibboleth*….the liturgy’s structure and order has been supported and continued by episcopal conferences and their decisions for 40 years. (you appear to fear some type of *radical* change or *complete difference* which has not happened)….in fact, SC posits that conferences would slowly and wisely enculturate the liturgy by region based upon achieving the SC principles – enculturate doesn’t mean to throw out the structure/order. And as part of your reference to reaching the end of SC and looking at the totality of SC….we need to also add how SC has been interpreted, lived, and implemented since 1965 (e.g. conferences immediately began to pressure for quicker vernaculars, changes to sacraments, etc……this is also part of any school of interpretation (vs. trying to treat SC as some type of tabala rasa set in concrete and the *mythical* search for its true meaning).

        You can always argue against *my* approach but *my* approach is taken from the experts; those who actually participated in the discussions, formulation, and voting for SC and those peer-reviewed liturgists such as Pecklers, Faggioli, Marini, Chupungo, the five volume history from Komonchak, etc. SC’s principles, norms, directives, guidelines have at its core that liturgy is to support full, active, complete participation and territorial authorities (conferences) have the pastoral duty to decide about language and enculturation to achieve those principles.

        Would suggest that Fr. Joncas reference was to various schools of interpretation – historical critical; etc. and not a reference to an approach that elevates certain articles (such as latin) as the core or center from which to interpret SC (thus, would say that trying to decide which article is more or less important is unhelpful despite your trying to put words in my mouth – rather experts start with the structure of SC (vs. a literal approach that treats each article separately and equally)

      12. Peter Haydon

        @Bill deHaas – comment #5:
        Bill
        I do indeed ignore the notes and debates: I do not have access to them. I gather that most records are incomplete as they were made by participants. I suspect that they would be helpful if we can see which propositions were rejected and the arguments for them and so help us appreciate the arguments for each decision. Without these I rely on the text which has authority even if it may not, through poor drafting perhaps, reflect the wishes of the council participants.
        I do not think that I indicated any preference for any interpretation: I attempted an answer to Fr Michael’s query about the differing choice of words in articles 36 and 63.
        I am not sure how you deduce from my comment that I am a traditionalist: it seems to me that in attempting to understand SC we should try to see what the most natural meaning of the text is.
        Cheers
        Peter

      13. Steven Surrency

        @Scott Smith – comment #3:
        Scott, this is exactly what I was thinking. The dissenting minority had a voice in the document that should also be heard, respected, and followed.

    2. Peter Haydon

      @Bill deHaas – comment #2:
      Thank you Bill
      I recall reading a few years ago a law case about a London market. The land had been granted by Charles II using a deed in Latin. The court reviewed an “agreed” translation. One problem was that it was not clear if the slightly different terms used in different parts of the document indicated a looser drafting style than modern lawyers would use or whether the meaning was intentionally different.
      My guess is that there was little effort made in SC to ensure precise meanings were used as the expectation was of general acceptance of the changes to be made. Perhaps also the compromises made to get agreement contributed to this lack of precision.
      In saying this I am not saying anything about the relative importance of each article in SC or what its meaning is. Rather I suggest that we may not always find in it the precision of expression that would prove that one view is right and another wrong.
      It may be worth seeing if the reader’s understanding of a paragraph could have been explained more succinctly.
      So: “The use of Latin in other sacraments is to be abolished” would have been a clear indication that no Latin was to be used. The article does not say that. It refers us back to a paragraph that begins with reaffirming the use of Latin. So it seems that the complete abolition of Latin was not the express intention of this article. I suspect that the use of Latin for sacraments outside Mass was made very rare by the use permitted of the vernacular but that is slightly different, the predictable consequence of the article, rather than the formal instruction given here.
      As for the point about the scope for territorial action I merely suggest that the indication given in this article alone is not absolutely clear.
      With regard to the relative importance of articles in SC I suspect that you are right that the theological analysis is more important: the practical instructions could be changed if the appropriate authorities decided…

      Reply
  3. Jack Rakosky

    Piero Marini in A Challenging Reform (pp. 27-28) indicates that there were at least two different ways in which bilingual rituals were produced before the Council:

    1) In missionary territories such as those under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Propagation of the faith they were done by local bishops. In a footnote he gives the example of India where the Apostolic Delegate had the bishops appoint a commission, stating that the resulting Ritual which was approved by the Bishops would be able to be used for a decade without any further recourse to Rome.

    2) in other lands the Congregation of Rites took a more active part (probably because they could actually find someone in Rome who knew the native language).

    In the case of Poland, a translator who appeared capable was engaged by the Congregation to judge the quality of the translation provided by the Polish bishops. ..he wrote several pages of observations very critical of the translation. The observations were…sent back to the Polish Bishops conference. The reaction … was immediate and strong. How was it possible that the text…produced by a team of outstanding scholars…be …dismissed by a Vatican Congregation that had no experience of Polish life and culture. In the end the Congregation was forced to concede and accept the texts proposed by the Polish bishops

    A similar thing happened in regard to Hungary, except this time the Congregation found a Hungarian Benedictine monk to do the translation. Unfortunately his patriotism and enthusiasm were greater than his competence. However do to a lack of alternatives, the Congregation was forced to accept the monk’s revision and approve the Ritual.

    So the differences in wording in SC may simply reflect the knowledge that different procedures had been use in the past to bring together the expertise on native languages and cultures (not likely to be found in Rome) with expertise on the liturgy (more likely to be found in Rome) to get the job done.

    Also the Council Fathers had expressed a desire for the reform of the Curia but its details were up to the Pope so that it was difficult to legislate how the Curia would deal with these issues.

    As we see in the Marini book, the translation issues arose immediately after the Council since bishops conferences were in their infancy as was how the reform of the liturgy would be managed in Rome.

    Curia reform has remained and is today a continuing issue. Francis intends in the reform of the Curia that they become a service to bishops rather than substituting their lack of expertise for expertise available locally to bishops

    Reply
  4. Fr. Jan Michael Joncas

    Re: Mr. Kosala @ #7: I believe that, like many texts, the Council documents are patient of multiple interpretations. I further believe that historical-critical scholarship can be helpful in determining a range of meanings probably intended by the original authors. The very fact that historical-critical scholarship can be applied to these texts does not suggest to me that “their time has passed,” any more than historical-critical scholarship can be applied to biblical texts suggests that the Bible’s “time has passed.” But I just as I would not limit the meanings of biblical texts to what was consciously intended by the human author(s), so I would recognize that there are other disciplines in addition to historical-critical that may help us interpret the meaning of these texts.

    Reply
    1. Stanislaus Kosala

      @Fr. Jan Michael Joncas – comment #9:
      Fr. Joncas,

      The difference with the Bible is that while historical-critical scholarship is helpful, we still interpret it according to a subsequent tradition of interpretation (e.g. the decision to put the Apocalypse of St. John in the canon because of the belief that it was written by the apostle himself, something that historical-critical method shows to be very unlikely). Shouldn’t we also interpret sacrosanctum concilium in light of later documents promulgated by Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, even if those documents contradict the intentions of the council fathers?
      Either way, the fact remains that the document has the authority of the council behind it independently of any insider account.

      Reply
      1. Jordan Zarembo

        @Stanislaus Kosala – comment #16:

        It is difficult to view Sacrosanctum concilium through a historical-critical lens. The moment in which the council bishops and periti inhabited during the promulgation process is quite similar in many respects to the moment PTB readers inhabit. These moments in tim are not identical, however. Still, the distance in time is so short that the conciliar documents cannot be reasonably, but not exactly understood at a point of evolution in time, belief, and culture relatively contemporaneous to today. It is impossible to review previous moments in time perfectly through the lens of today. The only alternative is a projection of what events past might have been. The precision of today’s lens weakens with the extension of time passed.

      2. Jordan Zarembo

        @Jordan Zarembo – comment #17:

        Still, the distance in time is so short that the conciliar documents cannot be reasonably, but not exactly understood at a point of evolution in time, belief, and culture relatively contemporaneous to today

        Instead,

        “Still, the distance in time is so short that the conciliar documents can be reasonably, but not exactly understood at a point of evolution in time, belief, and culture relatively contemporaneous to today”

        My apologies.

  5. Bill deHaas

    Thanks, Fr. Joncas but I made a couple of points and the more significant one appears to be ignored in the discussion around a historical-critical method.

    SC was developed, written, and overwhelmingly approved based upon its structure – it lays out liturgical principles initially – say, the first 21 articles; then, moves to directives, and then cites guidelines, etc.
    One of the most important principles of SC starts with the foundation that there needs to be pastoral judgment in liturgy so that local celebrations can achieve full, active, and complete participation (thus, this will change by region, parish, culture, etc.). This led to another principle that territorial authorities (episcopal conferences) would make decisions and give approval.
    An example – on PTB we often argue over *do the red, read the black* as if this is set in stone. Some of what is being said above about interpreting SC reminds me of a *DTRSTB* approach to SC which is contrary to its initial principles and directives. It, again, treats each article as if it is literally true – when, in fact, most articles are guidelnies or directives under an overarching principle. So, the risk is that you put the cart before the horse by focusing on one article in isolation. Thus, if you believe that the article about the historical value of latin means that latin must always be used – you may miss that this type of approach could hinder or obstruct the principle of full, active participation.
    This has nothing to do with a historico-critical method.

    Reply
  6. Fr. Jan Michael Joncas

    Re: Mr. deHaas @ #10: Actually I wasn’t addressing anything you had written with my remarks @ #9, but only Mr. Kosala’s remarks @ #7. One of the difficulties of blog communication is that the threads do tend go off on tangents, in this case the use of historical-critical method to determine the possible meaning(s) intended by the author(s) of a text.

    Reply
  7. Alan Johnson

    Shouldn’t the document be interpreted in the light of what the Vatican and local hierarchies subsequently allowed and promulgated?
    Surely that was the church unravelling the meaning.

    Reply
  8. Jared Ostermann

    But surely we all understand that as a fundamental principle full, active and conscious participation is to be pursued? And also, as a general principle, Latin is to be preserved in the Roman Rite?

    And a natural hierarchy of principles would suggest that when Latin hinders FACP, it need not be used?

    Reading the above comments, I don’t see anyone arguing that Latin must always and everywhere be used. I only see the argument that allowance for the vernacular does not require an abandonment of Latin. And that FACP does not categorically require an abandonment of Latin. This argument strikes me the same way as the hymns vs. propers war.

    The Church explicitly allows both hymns and propers (just as she explicitly allows both vernacular and Latin), and the decision about where to draw that line is a pastoral one. A perfectly natural and reasonable state of affairs…

    And by the way, the mantra that some articles of SC are more important and some are flawed compromises seems quite close to a cherry-picking mentality. The argument that all articles should be read in light of one another in a holistic way seems much more likely to negate cherry-picking. Guess what? There has been a lot of controversy and agenda, not to mention special-interest groups, rejected drafts, and so on, at many (if not all) Church councils. It’s nothing new, and knowing about it in greater detail than before due to our print and media-saturated culture doesn’t allow us to pick and choose which officially-promulgated articles to accept.

    Reply
  9. Peter Haydon

    I think that it might help if Bill would take the trouble to list for us which articles;

    A: “were obviously *compromise* statements – they were not intended to be literally and completely implemented”, and which
    B: “almost contradict each other”.

    In doing so, and perhaps adding explanation if required, he might be able both to counter the charge that he is “cherry-picking” and help us all to find the correct “approach to reading SC.”

    Reply
  10. Peter Haydon

    Bill
    Thank you for taking the trouble to answer my comment. I was not trying to imagine but to understand your thinking.
    To my question at to “who can make an authoritative analysis of which parts were to be implemented and which ignored” you answer seems clear: “Pecklers, Faggioli, Marini, Chupungo, [and] the five volume history from Komonchak.”
    My other question about “the theoretical possibility of liturgy being completely different in different parts of the world” you answer with the observation that it has not as the “liturgy’s structure and order has been supported and continued by episcopal conferences and their decisions for 40 years” as they have sought to follow SC. I suppose that the probability of divergence depends on the degree of agreement as to what principles are to be followed and the willingness to do so.

    My point about reaching the end of SC is that the concerns we have discussed are about the whole document. Each article may still be worth examining individually as this series does.

    I do hope that Pecklers, Faggioli, Marini and Chupungo have very succinct ways of writing. Sadly my employer does not pay me to read all about it so time is short. Komochachak sounds to me one who has plenty more to say than I have the time to read. My daughter’s homework and the books of the charity I am treasurer of demand my attention forcefully.

    Incidentally I wrote nothing to say that I thought the retention of Latin was good or bad: I merely sought to understand what the article said about it and what it did not say. Soon we will be on the next article which promises much.

    Reply
  11. Jim McKay

    what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

    The terminology we are using is clouding the issue. Compromise and cherry picking imply harsher distinctions than really exist.

    At Vatican II, a group of people with different ideas came together. Sometimes they forged statements that left open multiple possibilities. These were not so much compromises as professions of faith in God’s guidance of the Church. ‘We do not have the answers to these questions but the Church will find a way.’

    We are in the process of examining the possibilities now, and seeing what fits. Even though people in 1964 may have thought Latin might be compatible with FCAP, experience points us in a different direction. God’s guidance may lead us in a different direction, or it may strengthen this perception. We may have a clearer idea today than they did at the Council, a result of sifting through the many possibilities expressed in the documents.

    Reply

Posted

in

, ,

by

Michael Joncas

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading