Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Taking Stock after Chapter One

Having completed our article-by-article exploration of Chapter One of Sacrosanctum Concilium, it seems appropriate to ask for some feedback from Pray Tell readers.

For each article I have provided:

1) the Vatican website translation
2) the Latin text
3) my “slavishly literal” translation of the Latin text
4) a précis of what the article meant to those who crafted it and voted on it
5) some questions to spark discussion of how the article has influenced and might influence[Roman Rite] worship over the last fifty years

I have frequently been surprised at the responses. In some cases, topics I thought that would generate a great deal of discussion (e.g., the role of liturgical inculturation in arts. 37-40) produced relatively little commentary, while others seemed to produce much discussion, but frequently of issues that seemed to my mind tangential to the article under examination. Such, however, may be characteristic of blog discussions.

So the questions I would have at this point are:

1) Should this article-by-article re-reading of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy continue?
2) If so, should it include the five elements listed above, or omit any, or add any?
3) What would be most helpful to the readership?
4) Is there anyone who would wish to volunteer to take over responsibility for the on-going postings? (If the consensus of the group is that the re-reading should continue AND if no one else volunteers, I will continue the postings as best I can, incorporating your suggestions as best I am able.)

We’ll keep this process of taking stock open until 17 May 2013.

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

13 responses to “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Taking Stock after Chapter One”

  1. Robert Nugent

    By all means keep it going, but perhaps you could outsource some of the chapters for commentary by qualified individuals.I find three translations too many, but not sure which one should be retained, but I think one would be sufficient.
    Thank you for this valuable service.

    Reply
  2. Terri Miyamoto

    I like your #5-questions to spark discussion. You have helped me look at the text beyond the historic perspective and think about it as an ongoing today process — something that’s not always so easy in today’s environment. I have to admit that the Latin does me no good since I can’t read it but I understand that it is important to others.

    I would love for you to keep going, with help if you can get it. I would hate to ask for more, but maybe a comment about what has been hard to implement or what has created resistance or, alternatively has been easily embraced, would spark conversation. It’s hard for me to come up with these kinds of e samples since I don’t remember pre-Vatican II.

    Reply
  3. Jonathan Day

    Fr Michael, I am grateful for your hugely valuable contribution on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. I have not always participated as much as I would like to have done. I hope you will continue!

    To respond to each question:

    1) Should this article-by-article re-reading of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy continue?

    Yes, by all means. However, I would somewhat slow the pace at which individual chapters appear. The rhythm of discussion on Pray Tell is hard to predict — for example, a post on “unvested altar servers” provoked a lot of debate, where other, perhaps more foundational issues received much less. Sometimes external events (e.g. Pope Francis’s election) drive this, sometimes other things.

    By allowing perhaps a fortnight between SC posts, there might be less chance of one chapter eclipsing another before a good discussion can take place.

    2) If so, should it include the five elements listed above, or omit any, or add any?

    I think the five elements are great and would not omit or add any. The fourth (“a précis of what the article meant to those who crafted it and voted on it”) might usefully be expanded from time to time, perhaps referring to O’Malley or to Xavier Rynne.

    3) What would be most helpful to the readership?

    A bit more time between chapter postings, as noted above.

    4) Is there anyone who would wish to volunteer to take over responsibility for the on-going postings? (If the consensus of the group is that the re-reading should continue AND if no one else volunteers, I will continue the postings as best I can, incorporating your suggestions as best I am able.)

    If I can be helpful with the Latin translations, happy to do so, perhaps working a few chapters in advance.

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      @Jonathan Day – comment #3:

      Jonathan: If I can be helpful with the Latin translations, happy to do so, perhaps working a few chapters in advance.

      Jonathan sine exceptione me placet. Jonathan’s best for this job. I’m prone to mistakes, as on PTB my first drafts are always my last drafts regardless of language.

      Reply
  4. Ann Riggs

    I can’t do the Latin but I would be glad to do some brief commentary and/or questions for discussion. And by all means, the readings should continue. Where else, outside of a graduate seminar, do we have the opportunity to do this kind of close reading of a seminal text?

    Reply
  5. Linda Reid

    I do not comment as much as others because I do not always have any experience with or knowledge of the topic. But I read EVERY post and ALL the comments and it has greatly enhanced my understanding of the document.
    Michael, I so appreciate your taking the time to share your gifts with this forum and I hope the unpredictablity of the comments will not deter you. Personally, I find it difficult to get into the heads of the crafters of the document and speculate about what their intent was, but that’s just me! I find your precis and discussion questions most helpful, and I look forward to continuing my review of this document.

    Reply
  6. Jack Rakosky

    My main suggestion would be to have only one SC post in the active list at any one time and then post the next one when the last one has been archived. It is easy to become distracted by other posts that are newsy.

    While the three versions may tend to focus too much attention on translation issues, they are all probably needed.

    The historical context is also very important, perhaps even more so than the translations.

    some questions to spark discussion of how the article has influenced and might influence[Roman Rite] worship over the last fifty years is the area where PrayTell readers could probably be of most assistance.

    Perhaps if we slow down the pace of going through these articles it will allow the readers more opportunity to feel free to raise questions and comments that might spark more discussion. This whole area of the “reception” of V2 documents is in many ways the most important, and where many readers could contribute.

    However “Perhaps a fortnight between posts” is a much too long. I had to look up that word despite its recent use by the American Bishops which assured everyone that their politicking was irrelevant.

    Fourteen nights is too long. One active post at a time seems the right pace whether that lasts for a few days or fourteen days depending on how active things are.

    Reply
  7. Jack Feehily

    Michael, I have very much appreciated the opportunity to more closely examine this important document. I’ve often marveled at the time and energy you have put into this and can only hope that you have the time and energy to continue. It does seem to be in the nature of bloggers to jump from something complex to something perceived as controversial. All I know is that I have learned a great deal from contributors with whom I both agree and disagree. Thanks again.

    Reply
  8. Jeremy Helmes

    I, too, have greatly appreciated this series of posts and thank you for your leadership in putting them forward. I have not contributed to them both because of a lack of time, but moreso out of intimidation by the scope of potential discussion.

    I always appreciate your suggested paths of inquiry and would certainly appreciate any prompts for discussion that help narrow the lines of thought from the theoretical to the pragmatic.

    I will make an effort to contribute to a few of the SC posts going forward should they continue!

    Thanks, Michael!

    Reply
  9. Graham Wilson

    Yes, please, please do continue.

    I may not be able to contribute anything but an opinion, so usually keep quite. But I have enjoyed reading these posts, and have learned so much along the way too — thank you.

    Reply
  10. Jeff Rice

    I hope that the article-by-article reading continues, and appreciate both the official and “slavishly literal” translations. Even though I don’t often comment because I’m not a scholar and my experience is almost entirely practical, I do read each and every post (as a matter of discipline in observing the Year of Faith) and even find the nuanced discussion of a particular Latin word enlightening. Thank you for this series.

    Reply
  11. James Savage

    Along with a number of previous commentators above, I have never sent in a response, query or comment, but I read, reread every article and comment. I am grateful for the format especially for the three versions of the text. Pray, keep telling.

    Reply
  12. Patrick Mulrooney

    I am in the same boat as James Savage. Thank you, Fr. Mike for “unpacking” this important document!

    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