In the past I have checked in with Pray Tell’s readership about the on-going series in which we are re-reading the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” article by article. I had originally intended to cover an article a week, thinking that we would complete our re-reading to mark the 50th anniversary of the promulgation of the document. At an earlier check-in I was asked if I could post the articles more slowly, and so aimed at posting an article with commentary every two weeks. Except for weeks when I have been on vacation or tied up with other projects, that has been the usual pace of posting since the last check-in.
At that time I also asked if anyone wished to take over providing the “slavishly literal translations” of the articles that I post along with the Vatican website translation and the Latin text and received some positive responses, until the press of other responsibilities made it impossible for these contributors to continue their translation work. I’ll repeat the question today and would be happy to hear from anyone who might want to take over that responsibility.
In addition to offering some contextual remarks about the article under examination, I have tried to pose some questions that might guide our discussion. I have found that the contextual material seems to be about right in terms of content and length, but that the questions for discussion don’t seem to be all that helpful (at least in terms of reader responses). Am I correct in this assessment? If so, should I simply offer a contextualization and leave readers free to take the discussion in any direction they wish (which they will do regardless of these questions for discussion)?
I have also noticed that what began with a great flurry of readers’ comments per article has settled down to a rather anemic response. It strikes me that this may be a result of: 1) greater interest in the foundational principles articulated in Chapter One than in the concrete directives and recommendations found in later chapters; 2) greater interest in the directives and recommendations concerning the Mass than in those concerning the sacraments and sacramentals (and if this is true, I suspect there will be even less interest in the Council Fathers’ treatment of the Divine Office); 3) frustration that so many of the discussions seem to serve as opportunities to state individual opinions (sometimes quite vigorously) without much interest in moving toward consensus or articulating the assumptions behind the opinions held; or 4) simply a reflection of the relative interest generated by the different articles. On the other hand, I may be doing something that impedes a more vigorous exchange. I would be happy to hear recommendations from the readership on whether or not the project should continue and, if so, what might make this project of greater interest to more readers.
Please leave a reply.