Paul Inwood
Today is the 60th anniversary of the promulgation of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. This ground-breaking document set the scene for the liturgical reforms which followed.
Among many other things, we can be grateful that the Council saw the People of God as active celebrants of the liturgy; that full, conscious and active participation by all is the primary value; that something more is required than the mere observance of rubrics; and much else besides.
All these years later, we still have those with us who deny that the liturgy was in need to any reform whatsoever. However, the words of the Council Fathers are unequivocal:
“In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. 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.” (para 21)
And there is much left to be done. Pope Francis in his apostolic letter Desiderio Desideravi reminds us of the need for liturgical formation.
SC was clear that this has to start with liturgical formation of the clergy: “It would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy.” (para 14)
60 years on, liturgy in seminaries is still a poor relation, despite the stipulations of SC 16. This is what lies at the root of a reform which remains only partial and half-hearted, when not actually rejected. Bishops, and therefore priests, and therefore lay people, are still very ignorant of the history of liturgical development as well as the principles of the postconciliar reform. We are still trying to celebrate a reformed liturgy in a largely unreformed way. The result of this is a stifling of organic development, the retention of devotional customs and practices that ought by now to have been left behind, and a general complacency about the standard of ars celebrandi. This lack of life and vibrancy in what we do is to a great extent responsible for the desultory discharge of an obligation that seems to be the norm in many places. No wonder numbers are dwindling.
Let us pray that we will make a greater effort in striving to realize the liturgical vision of the Council Fathers, so that the liturgy will truly become “the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit.” (para 14)