The Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms in the Life of the Church (The Pere Marquette Lecture in Theology 2003)

The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology 2003

The Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms in the Life of the Church

Pierre-Marie Gy, O.P.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gy, Pierre-Marie. The reception of Vatican II liturgical reforms in the life of the church / Pierre-Marie Gy. p. cm. — (The Père Marquette lecture in theology ; 2003) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-87462-583-1 (alk. paper) 1. Catholic Church—Liturgy—History. 2. Liturgics—History. 3.Vatican Council (2nd : 1962-1965) I. Title: Reception of Vatican 2 liturgical reforms in the life of the church. II. Title: Reception of Vatican two liturgical reforms in the life of the church. III. Title. IV. Series. BX1970.G9 2003 264'.02'009045—dc21 2003001975

© 2003 Marquette University Press Milwaukee WI 53201-3141 All rights reserved.

Manufactured in the United States of America Member, Association of American University Presses

Foreword The annual Père Marquette Lecture in Theology commemorates the missions and explorations of Père Jacques Marquette, S.J. (1637-75). The 2002 lecture is the thirty-third in the series begun in 1969 under the auspices of the Marquette University Department of Theology. The Joseph A. Auchter Family Endowment Fund has endowed the lecture series. Joseph Auchter (18941986), a native of Milwaukee, was a banking and paper industry executive and a long-term supporter of education. The fund was established by his children as a memorial to him.

PÈRE PIERRE-MARIE GY, O.P. Our Père Marquette Lecturer for 2003 is one of the most influential liturgical scholars of our time and comes to us from the Institut supérieur de liturgie in Paris, France. Pierre-Marie Gy, O.P., was born in Paris on October 19, 1922. In 1940 he began medieval studies at the famous School of Chartes in Paris and a year later he entered the Dominican order. Ordained a priest In 1948, from 1949 to 1968 Père Gy taught sacramental theology and liturgy at the Dominican Faculty of Theology of Le Saulchoir. His own doctoral dissertation was on the history and theology of the Ritual of the Sacraments. From 1949 until 2001 he was a member of the Center of Pastoral Liturgy, which in 1964 became the official liturgical center of the French episcopate.

4

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

The two scholars whose work and personal presence influenced Père Gy the most were Dom Bernard Botte, O.S.B., of Louvain, the greatest historian of the liturgy in the 20th century, and Yves Congar, O.P., especially from 1945 to 1954 and during the last years of his life when Gy was Cardinal Congar’s closest confidant. During the early part of his career, Père Gy had friendly scholarly contact with the great Anglican liturgist, Dom Gregory Dix, and—both before Vatican II and during the post-conciliar work of liturgical reform—with Fr. Joseph Andreas Jungmann, S.J., the eminent Austrian historian of the liturgy. It was due in great part to Balthasar Fischer and Père Gy’s conciliating efforts that the head liturgist among the French, Aimé-Georges Martimort, and Johannes Wagner, the chief German liturgist, were able to work together in that post-war period, thereby making possible Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium as well as the later work of liturgical reform. In 1956 Gy was named assistant director under Dom Bernard Botte of the new Institut supérieur de liturgie founded at the Institut catholique of Paris. Succeeding Botte as director in 1964, Gy continued on in that capacity until 1987 when he became director of doctoral studies and of the whole faculty of theology. His retirement from teaching came in 1990. During his tenure at the Institut supérieur de liturgie he directed a total of 50 doctorates in liturgy, a dozen of which were by Americans. Together with Johannes Wagner and AiméGeorges Martimort, Père Gy was one of the principal architects of Sacrosanctum Concilium and of the

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

5

post-conciliar liturgical reform. Over the years he has been the editor, first, of the Dominican Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, and then of the extremely influential journal on the liturgy, La Maison Dieu. From 1971 to 1973 he served as the third president of the Societas Liturgica, an ecumenical and international association of liturgical scholars. A 1990 listing of his scholarly publications includes 137 articles, 19 annual bulletins on the liturgy, and numerous book reviews. Although formally retired, Père Gy has continued his writing through the past 13 years. One example of his productivity is his latest “Bulletin de Liturgie” in the Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques (86/4). This past year’s yearly overview of recent scholarly activity in the liturgy across the world runs a total of 46 pages! Throughout his scholarly career Père Gy’s primary concern has been to help re-establish the unity between sacramental theology and the Church’s liturgy, both as historically understood and as celebrated. Marquette University, named after one outstanding French priest and explorer, is deeply honored by the presence in its midst and the shared wisdom of yet another. For generations Père Pierre-Marie Gy, O.P., has served as an outstanding example of careful historical investigation into, and profound love for, the liturgy of the Church. Liturgical scholars across the world have benefitted immeasurably from his dedicated life of learning, both those who had the privilege to study under him in Paris, and the many more who have read his work in the pages of La Maison Dieu and elsewhere. Marquette University

6

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

wishes to join its voice to the all those who have recognized and expressed gratitude for his immense contribution to the Church’s liturgy and her understanding of the liturgy. May le Père Gy in this, his 81st year, continue to receive, along with our gratitude, God’s richest blessings for many more years to come. John D. Laurance, S.J. Feast of the Presentation, 2003

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

7

The Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

in the Life of the Church Pierre-Marie Gy, O.P. I. The Meaning of This Paper MY ROLE IN THE REFORM

AND

1. Meaning of the Title

T

he title of this paper “The Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms in the Life of the Church,” expresses the topic I was asked to address. Instead of “reception” one might use the word “implementation,” as I did in a paper at Oxford in 1989.1 One could perhaps also ask what was the term Pope Pius XII used in a similar context at the time of the restoration of the Paschal Vigil, or what designation Pope Paul VI gave to the same reality after the promulgation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, or the promulgation of the Missal of 1970. Here I use the word “reception” with a “factual” meaning. In doing so I of course intend to give due attention to the interaction between what was decided by the Council and the way in which the decisions were implemented. Furthermore I also have in mind, at least to some extent, the ecclesiological reflection

8

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

Cardinal Congar, my master and old friend, made about the concept of reception itself: reception is “the way through which a Church body truly assumes a decision which it didn’t give itself and recognizes in it a rule which is fitting for its own life” (“processus par lequel un corps ecclésial fait sienne en vérité une détermination qu’il ne s’est pas donnée à lui-même, en reconnaissant, dans la mesure promulguée, une règle qui convient à sa vie.”)2 I therefore presuppose the title “The Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms” to include, together with Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the liturgical books renovated in accordance with it, under the supervision and authority of Pope Paul VI and of the cardinals and bishops who formed a special Commission in charge of the work. These cardinals and bishops had also previously been participants of Vatican II itself. The Latin designation which was given to this special Commission, Consilium, is both very much like the Latin designation of the Council itself, Concilium, and also slightly different. As you may perhaps be able to hear, the Consilium, the Commission, is spelled with an “s” and the Concilium, the Council, with a “c.” 2. The preparation of the Liturgy Constitution and the work of the Commission in charge of the Liturgical Reform, the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de S. Liturgia Some of you possibly know that I was among those who crafted the renovation of the liturgy. I was probably the youngest in that group. And today I am

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

9

also probably, with Msgr Jounel, one of the only two surviving members of the “relators,” the chief craftsmen, those who worked directly under the authority of a group of cardinals and bishops. When Pope John XXIII visited the members of the preparatory Commission, we were all introduced to him. Typically a few words were added to the name of the person, letting the Pope know whether or not he would have anything significant to say to that particular person. Accordingly, I was introduced: “Père Gy, a young French Dominican,”- in other words, nothing to say. The Brasilian liturgist, Msgr Nabuco, was the last to be introduced: “As you remember, Holy Father, Msgr Nabuco’s father was the Brasilian ambassador in Italy, and his uncle the Brasilian ambassador to the Holy See.” “Oh yes,” said the Pope, “Nabuco... donosor.” I am afraid Nabuco was the only one who didn’t laugh. In order to reflect on how the reform of the Liturgy was received in the Church, it is important to understand the rules under which the Consilium responsible for its preparation operated. Everything was first prepared by the liturgists, then reviewed by the general reunion of the relators. When the relators had reached an agreement concerning the proposed text, the text was submitted to the cardinals and bishops. This procedure was followed first for the general planning of a reform and then for approval of the full text of a new liturgy. It had two significant features: 1) All the relators both attended the meetings of the cardinals and bishops and were able to ask questions at those meetings; 2) However,

10

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

as a general rule, no relator could propose anything to the cardinals and bishops that had not been approved earlier at the meeting of the relators. I remember only two exceptions to these rules: 1) When the question of episcopal vestments, vestes episcoporum, was dealt with, the relators as a group agreed that they should not ask any question, and so only the bishops discussed it. One European archbishop, thought to be a well-known liturgist, argued that “episcopal vestments should remain as they always were — Vestes episcoporum debent manere uti semper fuerunt.” Nobody responded and no relator asked any questions. Wanting to develop his point further, the archishop noticed that a Japanese bishop was seated opposite him, and so he added, “Episcopal vestments for us are like the kimono is for you -vestes episcoporum apud nos sunt sicut kimono apud vos.” The Japanese bishop kindly replied, “The kimono for us is like pajamas are for you -Kimono apud nos est sicut pajama apud vos.” 2) The second exception dealt with the number of readings at Sunday Mass. With the notable exception of Aimé-Georges Martimort,3 I believe that most historians agree with the opinion I expressed in the Festschrift we offered to Cardinal Lercaro,4 namely that both in Constantinople and in Rome, according to the most ancient tradition, the liturgy of the Sunday Mass had three readings. The readings were taken from the “Old Testament,” St Paul’s letters, and the Gospels. Even though a broader hearing of the Word of God at Mass is one of the main features of the Liturgical Reform, most of the relators believed that having three readings in the liturgy would

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

11

make the liturgy too heavy. Nevertheless, the special group in charge of this question insisted on presenting the question to the cardinals and bishops. In doing so, they pointed out that the opportunity for such a change might never come again. The cardinals and bishops decided in favor of three readings. The Sunday Mass Lectionary with three readings was a great success in non-Catholic English-speaking liturgical traditions. Some of these traditions, however, were inclined to give to the Old Testament readings an importance equivalent to the readings from the New Testament. Although the matter might need a more thorough scrutiny from the viewpoint of biblical theology and Christian Tradition, I believe that for the most part the patristic Tradition insisted on seeing the Old Testament as totally transparent to the New Testament proclamation, rather than simply in a historical juxtaposition that would serve only to exaggerate its value. Another significant characteristic of the meetings of the Commission’s cardinals and bishops was the presence of non-Catholic observers. All the observers received copies of the proposed texts, and they heard the discussions. Although the observers did not have the right to speak during the meetings, we were able to ask them questions privately. When the whole work of the Commission was finished and they had to leave, the observers asked for permission to express their thanks. It was the chief liturgical scholar of the Church of England who spoke a word of gratitude on behalf of his colleagues, and he added, alluding to the discussions that he and the

12

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

others had witnessed, “Now we know that freedom exists in the Church of Rome!” I would like to add a personal note, namely that the attendance at our Commission of some of the best non-Catholic liturgical scholars had a profound influence on the liturgies of most of their churches. It would be a mistake to think, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, that the presence of these scholars resulted in a Protestantizing of the Roman Mass. Lefebvre’s 1975 paper, “From Luther’s evangelical Mass to the new Order of Mass — Ordo Missae,”5 for example, gives absolutely no attention to the extremely important Preliminary Chapter, Prooemium, of the Introduction to the Missal of 1970, which was first prepared as a second Apostolic Constitution on the Missal. This Prooemium develops three crucial themes: 1) that the Mass is a witness to unchanged faith — Testimonium fidei immutatae; 2) that it is a witness to unbroken Tradition — Traditio non intermissa declaratur; and 3) that it is an adaptation to modern conditions — Ad novas rerum condiciones accommodatio. In fact, Lefebvre’s 1975 paper offers no evidence that he had read anything about liturgy since his seminary years in the 1920s. Even at that time he thought that Pope Pius XI was much too open-minded, a fact noted in a biography of Lefebvre by Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, one of the bishops he ordained in 1988.6 On the Protestant side, it is worth noting Max Thurian’s response in 1970 to the publication of the new Missal. A member of the Taizé community, Thurian remarked, “I would like to celebrate that Mass!” The deeper significance of his words became

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

13

clear a few years later, when he became a Catholic and was ordained a priest, precisely in order to be able to celebrate the Mass. I understand that such a case may be difficult for the sensitivity of French Protestants, and all of us, even lefebvrites, must try to consider the liturgical reform at a higher level. From this viewpoint I would like to call attention to a very interesting paper of the German Protestant theologian and liturgist Hans-Christoph SchmidtLauber, “Das Eucharistiegebet.”7 There is one more point to be made, and possibly the most important, about how the Commission worked to produce the new liturgy, namely, the direct line of communication that it had with Pope Paul VI. Indeed, the fact that the Pope read every text of our work greatly facilitated it. The truth is that Pope Paul had always had a deep interest in the liturgy. Apparently Giovanni Battista Montini as a young man considered joining the French Benedictine community exiled near Brescia in Italy, but these Benedictines were hesitant to take in Italians as novices, for doing so would eventually make their community more Italian than French.8 In later years, Montini’s love for the liturgy focused primarily on its value for fostering the Christian life of the faithful. Both as Archbishop of Milan and as Pope during Vatican II, he was especially interested in the question of the vernacular, and in the pastoral and ecclesiological importance of what I would call “thinking as a community,” where the majority in the community truly listens to the minority and resists the temptation to polarization. Fr Congar, who was of a rather different temperament, some-

14

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

times a bit too rigid, told me that during the Council when the Pope went for a few weeks to Castel Gandolfo to take some rest, he brought along the main arguments offered by the minority to whatever Conciliar document was currently the most contentious. He did this in order to make sure that the majority had paid sufficient attention to the requests of the minority. I also remember how Fr. Congar, a few months before he died, remarked to me, “Every evening in my prayer I pray Paul VI to beg the Lord to give me a ‘spirit of communion.’” The same spirit of communion was evident in Abbot Prou of Solesmes. During the Council Abbot Prou was one of the leaders of the minority. When things had been decided he said, “The vocation of Solesmes is to follow the Pope,” and the result was that in France he was the most effective opponent to Archbishop Lefebvre. Within the Commission I remember how the French liturgist Martimort once remarked to me about our work, “Perhaps among us we need something like a minority!” Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli was one of the members of the Commission. He had previously been head of the pre-Vatican II Commission for liturgical reform under Pius XII, with Annibale Bugnini as secretary of that Commission. Everybody knew how disappointed Antonelli was that John XXIII had not made him, as head of the previous Commission, responsible for the Council’s work on the liturgical reform, especially given the fact that Antonelli was not in the minority at the Council. I am afraid that the recent dissertation

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

15

written on the private papers of Cardinal Antonelli9 does not pay sufficient attention to his disappointment. But future historians should be aware of it when judging the liturgical reform of Vatican II. In order to illustrate John XXIII’s manner, let me recall something that happened in 1960. At the beginning of the summer I learned that I had been nominated to be a peritus of the pre-conciliar commission for the liturgy, and that Père Congar had been nominated to be a peritus of the commission for theology. Towards the beginning of August in Salzburg, I met Msgr Piolanti, a prominent, energetic Roman theologian. When I mentioned these nominations to him, he was scandalised by Congar’s being named a peritus. Returning to the role of Pope Paul during the work of the Commission, I think he had three preoccupations. First, he wondered whether the liturgical changes should take place progressively rather than taking place overnight, as it were. My impression was that those bishops who heard such a question, even in the English-speaking countries, were strongly — perhaps even too strongly — in favor of resolving all the questions as quickly as possible. I intend to say more about the time needed for adequate spiritual understanding of liturgical reforms a bit later in this paper. The second question for the Pope was how properly to honor the concerns of the minority. An example of the kind of detailed issues that arose during the discussion of the Order of the Mass was whether the Latin ”Orate Fratres” invitation should be retained. According to the common opinion of

16

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

the liturgists, it is within the Eucharistic Prayer rather than at the Offertory that we mainly have to be conscious of the Eucharistic sacrifice. But the Pope insisted, and the “Orate fratres” was retained, so that today we have the vernacular rendition, “Pray that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.” The third concern for the Pope was his insistence during the whole work of the Commission on reading every text, asking questions and making suggestions, usually through Archbishop Bugnini. Some people today imagine that Bugnini had too strong an influence on Pope Paul and that it was he who convinced the Pope to make the liturgical changes they find so offensive. Scholars will be able to decide this question when all the documentation becomes available. For my part it is clear to me, as it was, I believe, to the Frenchman Martimort10 and the German Johannes Wagner,11 that Pope Paul governed the Church both globally and in detail, and that he was deeply schooled in the liturgy (more profoundly than Archbishop Lefebvre). That the Pope paid close attention to the submissions of Bugnini did not prevent him from making his own decisions. Much of what I have said so far about the involvement of Pope Paul in the work of the reform can be understood or surmised from Bugnini’s book, The Reform of the Liturgy. I could offer a number of important examples, but I will mention only two – one having to do with the vow formula (words of consent) in the rite of marriage, and the other with

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

17

the Instruction Comme le prévoit, which concerns the translation of liturgical texts. I assume that before Vatican II almost everyone in England and the United States was familiar with the words, “I, N., take you, N., for my lawful wife (husband), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.” No doubt they thought that these words were better than the simple “yes” of the Roman Ritual.12 Since I come from Normandy I won’t offer my opinion on whether or not this sentence was brought from Normandy into England. In any event, the cardinal and bishops of the Commission agreed to adopt the longer version. However, when the Ritual for Marriage was ready for publication and I brought the text to Archbishop Bugnini, he said, “Somebody asked me whether it was right to say ‘for richer, for poorer.’” It took me about two minutes to figure out who that “Somebody” was: Pope Paul. Consequently, it only took another minute to answer the Pope’s question, “If these words were adopted and then used in Calcutta, could they be understood to suggest that Christianity wants to make people poor?” I agreed that we could safely leave out these two words. Regarding the document on liturgical translations, Comme le prévoit (1969),13 a few years ago I said to somebody at the Vatican, “I wonder whether the Roman Authorities will decide to make some corrections to this Instruction,” which, rightly or wrongly, was published in French because its principal editor thought that contemporary problems of

18

Luke Timothy Johnson

linguistic translations could no longer be rendered in Latin. In order to let me know that I was wrong even to think about correcting Comme le prévoit, the Italian liturgist to whom I was speaking showed me a text of Comme le prévoit that had in its margins a number of remarks in the handwriting of Paul VI, the last one which read, “It is slightly too long, but it is really fitting.” There are so many other examples of the Pope’s involvement that we can say that most of the documents of the liturgical reform during his papacy have been approved in forma specifica, that is, directly by the Pope, without a specific expression of such an approval, even if some younger liturgical scholars happen to ignore this fact. 3. My Involvement in the Work Before I make any comments on my own personal involvement in the work of liturgical reform, I have to let you know that there are two rules that I thought I should observe: First, I will not devulge which elements, if any, of the liturgical reform were originally suggestions that I made. Whatever value such suggestions may have derives from their acceptance by the Church’s Authority. Indeed, St. Thomas Aquinas regarded his authorship of the Liturgy of the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, Corpus Christi, in the same way. My second rule is to say nothing about those points of the liturgical reform that I may have opposed. I leave the reckoning of such things to future historians. Such reticence is nothing different from what was expected of the cardinals who took part in our discussions.

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

19

Even as I say this, I will make a small exception to this rule, with respect to the revision of the Calendar of Saints. When it was proposed that the General Calendar include the first saint of each continent, somebody asked, “With which degree of festivity should they be celebrated?” It was decided that the celebration would be an Obligatory Memorial only if the saint in question were a native of the respective continent. Then a survey of the continents was made to assess how well the decision would work out in practice. Only in Oceania, the western Pacific region, was there a problem. The first saint of Oceania was Pierre Chanel, a French missionary and contemporary of Jean-Marie Vianney, the Curé of Ars. The fact is that Chanel was almost eaten by pagans on an island near New Caledonia. I remember at that moment turning to my neighbor and saying to him out loud, “Of course, if he had been eaten in our own country, he would have an Obligatory Memorial.” As you might expect, I was duly scolded for this remark.

II. RECEPTION OF THE LITURGY AND ITS REFORMS 1. What reception did the liturgical reforms of Trent and Vatican II require from celebrants? Whenever we consider the reception of a new liturgical law from the Holy See we have to consider what reception the law itself calls for, whether that be at the time of Trent or of Vatican II. It is immediately evident from the documents them-

20

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

selves that historical contexts differ. The main concern at the time of Trent, as throughout the Middle Ages generally, was “how much time will it take for people to be informed about the decision?” Consequently, for the promulgation of the 1568 Roman Breviary and the 1570 Roman Missal, Pope Pius V decided that the obligation of using these books would come into force in the Roman Curia one month after the publication, even for cardinals; in Italy (i.e. below the mountains intra montes) three months after, and everywhere else six months after, or as soon as the books were available. Because in earlier times communication over great distances was much slower than it is today, it took a long time, for instance, to have a new feast celebrated throughout the Church. Corresponding with Rome in some cases demanded years rather than months or days. In the 17th century, when the Dominican prior of Manila heard about the existence of Australia, a large island located somewhere south of the Philippines, he procured a map of Australia and sent it to the Holy See along with a letter asking for permission to go there. His letter took five years to reach Rome, and the answer, which took another five years to make the return journey, decreed him to be the Apostolic Prefect for Australia. Sadly the prior died before the response arrived. However, the map he sent still exists, housed in the Vatican office for the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. It has been reproduced in the Australian bi-centenial exhibition catalogue.14 At the time of Vatican II new decisions by the Holy See were available almost instantaneously

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

21

throughout the world, but extra time was allowed for explaining and understanding them before calling for their implementation. For instance, Pope Paul VI decided that use of the new Missal would begin (vigere incipiens) on the First Sunday of Advent, 1969. The Apostolic Constitution Laudis Canticum (11/1/1970) approved the Liturgy of the Hours to take the place of the former Breviary. Its use was permitted in Latin as soon as a Latin edition was printed, but it would become mandatory only with the publication of vernacular translations. 2. Does the principle of “active participation,” on which the Liturgy Constitution insists, demand from the faithful a new and deeper reception of the liturgy? Two American liturgists have pursued this question, the Franciscan Thomas Richstatter, who studied in Paris,15 and the Benedictine Kevin Seasoltz, who is presently editor of Worship magazine at Collegeville, Minnesota.16 Regarding the importance of “active participation” in determining reception of the new liturgy, one essential point stands out clearly. Before Vatican II it was commonly understood that the sole celebrant of the Mass or Divine Office was the presiding priest or bishop. Everyone else who attended the liturgy did so piously, but without acting. I would like to offer three examples of this preVatican II understanding. The first and most significant of these examples deals with the notion of a public person — persona publica — which origi-

22

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

nated in Roman law and was received in the Church’s Canon Law. The German canonist Hans Müllejans has written an important study on this topic.17 In it he shows that only a public person has the power to act in the name of the people, the populus. That is the fundamental reason why the Pater noster of the Mass was to be recited by the priest alone. Added to the public nature of the ordained presider, and even weightier, is the fact that in the Eucharistic Prayer, it is Christ himself who is acting in the words of consecration (cf. infra, III, § 3 c). As we now know, prior understandings of the liturgy overlooked the very important fact that, although the Eucharistic Prayer has always been recited by the presiding priest or bishop alone, according to the text of the prayer the grammatical subject is in the plural: “we” instead of “I.”18 This distinction, along with the connection between the president of the celebration and the rest of the faithful, also finds expression in the words, “We your servants and your holy people” — nos servi tui sed et plebs tua sancta — of the Roman canon or Eucharistic Prayer I. The second example is what the Canadian Jesuit Charles Pottie has demonstrated in regard to the evolution of the word “celebrant.” Pottie showed that the word “celebrant” was applied in an exclusive sense to the priest alone only from the time of the liturgist Lothario di Segni. Di Segni later became Pope Innocent III at the turn of the thirteenth century (1198-1216). This historical fact concerning the word “celebrant” explains why the altera typica edition (1975) of the new Roman Missal

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

23

replaced the word celebrans by sacerdos celebrans or priest-celebrant. A third example of how the priest-presider is no longer seen as the sole celebrant is found in the Liturgy of the Hours. Before the Council the great French liturgist Aimé-Georges Martimort said to me, “My elderly mother likes to recite the Office of Compline, and I do it with her as frequently as I can, because otherwise her prayer would not be the prayer of the Church.” With the Introduction of the new Liturgy of the Hours19 the previous understanding as expressed by Martimort no longer holds sway. It was Yves Congar who taught that in general we should consider the Ecclesia or Christian community as the integral subject of the Liturgy: “L’Ecclesia’ ou communauté chrétienne, sujet intégral de la liturgie.”20 Pottie demonstrated further that this is the viewpoint adopted by the new liturgical books themselves.21 In conclusion, then, we can say that on the basis of liturgical law the principle of liturgical participation, first expressed by Pius X in the Motu Proprio, “Tra le sollecitudini”(1903)22 and then granted conciliar support and brought to its full requirements by the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, demands some time for its full implementation. 3. How the vernacular showed the bishops that the liturgical life of the Church before Vatican II needed the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It is likely the case that Pope Pius XII, perhaps influenced by the German Jesuit Augustin Bea, his

24

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

private liturgical advisor, began to favor a limited use of the vernacular in the liturgy. Towards the end of his pontificate the Episcopal Conferences were given the faculty to decide whether, in cases where the epistle of the Mass was read by a minister, the priest himself was allowed not to read the same text by himself. In France, before the vote of the bishops, I was in charge of explaining to them in advance, in a few lines, the meaning of such a vote. It happened that, speaking with Bernard Botte, a Louvain Benedictine who was probably the greatest liturgical historian of his generation, I told him about the reading of the epistle: “It is quite possible that what is easy to understand might be difficult to explain.” He responded, “It is clear that in recent centuries the priest has taken upon himself all the roles in the Mass, except that of bringing the cruets to the altar.” We know from Missarum Sollemnia, the great book by the Austrian Jesuit Josef Andreas Jungmann, that although the guiding principle of St. Pius V was to restore the Liturgy to the norms of the Holy Fathers — ad normam sanctorum Patrum, he unconsciously gave a new fundamental value to the private celebration of the Mass.23 After Pius XII the question of the vernacular became more urgent, though some strongly opposed it. Opponents of the vernacular even obtained from John XXIII a solemn document in favor of Latin, that the Pope was to proclaim in St Peter’s Basilica.24 On that day, however, he gave his occasional speech in the vernacular. At about the same time I was in Milan for a meeting of one of the groups working to prepare the Liturgy Constitution. We had to pay a

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

25

visit to Cardinal Montini. Knowing that I was working for La Maison Dieu, the cardinal said: “I read it regularly.” Then he asked whether the members of our preparatory Commission were in favor of the vernacular. We answered that most were, except for a great Gregorian Iberian musicologist. The cardinal replied, “Je pense que le temps est mûr” (“I think that the time is ripe”) and later, right at the beginning of the Council, he spoke in favor of it.25 It was at the Council itself that many bishops discovered that the vernacular was a live issue. I remember meeting the bishops of the Liturgical Commission of the United States about a month after the Council began. They told me that the whole question of the vernacular was a new one for them, but they thought that the arguments against its use seemed very weak. During the Council bishops who were cautious at first came to favor the vernacular on the basis of pastoral experience in their dioceses.

III. A RENEWED RECEPTION OF THE EUCHARISTIC LITURGY 1. Role of the vernacular for the Missa dialogata and the Liturgy of the Word. The use of the vernacular in the liturgy began on the First Sunday of Lent, 1964, two or three months after the issuance of Sacrosanctum Concilium. I would like to mention here two facts about liturgical life in Italy in order to exemplify the connection between the reception of Vatican II and liturgical life before

26

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

the Council. The first is in regard to the Missa dialogata or “Dialogue Mass,” in which the whole congregation, and not only the servers, gives the proper responses to the priest. I will give specific attention to how this Mass was celebrated in Rome. The second concerns the readings of the Mass at the Cathedral of Salerno near Naples. From 1950 on, I made visits to Rome every year, for at least a few days each time, but I never witnessed a “Dialogue Mass” celebrated there before 1964. I suppose “Dialogue Masses” had been celebrated in some places in northern Italy, since at that same time the practice was widespread in the towns of France, though not in country villages. In any event, on the First Sunday of Lent, 1964, before the Collect of the Mass, everywhere in Italy the priest-celebrant turned to the congregation, and instead of saying “Dominus vobiscum,” he said “Il Signore sia con voi,” and the whole congregation responded, “E con il tuo spirito.” As you know, Jungmann thought that the meaning of “et cum spiritu tuo” was equivalent to “and also with you.”26 However, on this point he was wrong, since both in Greek and in Latin “your spirit” in this phrase refers to the sacramental charisma of the priest-celebrant.27 Everybody at the time was ready to receive celebrating Mass in the vernacular. Twenty years later, at the first congress on the implementation of the liturgical reform, when the Roman Congregation asked me to present a report on the status of liturgical participation, I was able to say that during the intervening years the Missa dialogata had entered what S. Augustine calls, in the title of one of his

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

27

writings, “The Way of Life of the Catholic Church” (Mores Ecclesiae Catholicae).28 Here I should perhaps mention that after their first experience of turning to the congregation at the beginning of the Mass to give the greeting in the vernacular, many priests and some members of the congregation as well began to ask themselves whether it was then proper for priestcelebrants to turn back to the altar in order to pray the Collect. A few months later, immediately after Easter, we had the first meeting of the Commission established by Paul VI to implement the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. There I met one of the finest German liturgists, who told me that he had been at the Cathedral of Salerno, near Naples, for the Palm Sunday celebration. Although the Cathedral was full, he saw none of the faithful using a missal to follow the Mass. He said, “I suppose it was the first time in eight hundred or a thousand years that they actually heard the Passion according to Matthew.” The great Swedish scholar, Dag Norberg, has studied the twofold phenomenon of the transition from Latin to Romance languages and of the progressive inability to understand Latin among the Roman peoples. Something similar took place with the Orthodox liturgy in Greece, the country that gave us the language of the New Testament. Misunderstandings between speakers of Latin and speakers of Romance languages emerged in France in the 9th century, and sometime later in Italy.29 While the German liturgist was talking about Salerno, I remembered a Holy Week that I spent in the best “liturgical parish” of one of the major cities

28

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

in southern France. It was sometime in the early 1950s. I arrived on the Saturday before Holy Week. The parish priest said to me, “Perhaps you know that it is the custom of this city to bless the children on Palm Sunday. Could you help me?” I replied, “That’s why I’m here: to help you.” He went on, “The blessing takes place while the celebrant reads the Passion in Latin. During the reading the two of us go to the altar rail, each carrying a crucifix, while the mothers come forward with their children and kneel, instructing the children to ‘Give Jesus a kiss.’” So I helped out. I remember how, when one child did not want to take part, his mother went away crying. Years later, during the work on the Constitution on the Liturgy, I noticed something similar in regard to the rite of ordination of deacons. According to the Romano-German Pontifical — Pontificale RomanoGermanicum of the 10th century,30 the ordaining bishop said, “Accipe potestatem legendi Evangelium in Ecclesia Dei, tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis” (“Receive the power of reading the Gospel in the Church of God, both for the living and for the dead”). In the words tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis we see that the ministerial service was directed purely towards God, with no regard to the human listeners, who didn’t understand the Gospel proclamation in Latin. This sentence remained unchanged until it was corrected as part of the liturgical reform of Vatican II. In the new rite of ordination of deacons, the bishop says to the deacon, “Receive the Gospel of Christ of which you have been made a herald. Believe what you read, teach what you believe, and imitate what you teach.”31 (“Accipe Evangelium Christi, cuius praeco effectus es; et

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

29

vide, ut quod legeris credas, quod credideris doceas, quod docueris imiteris”). This first occasion, with the opening up to the vernacular, demonstrated both the importance and success of one of the main elements of the liturgical reform, namely, hearing the Word of God. In this connexion I would like to ask for more information about the use of missalettes. Of course missalettes are important for deaf people, but let us not forget that for the Virgin Mary, and for people who are illiterate, the Word of God goes directly from the ears to the heart. In addition to the readings at Mass, I should mention how important the Psalm after the first reading is for the laity’s liturgical participation. Although I cannot evaluate the laity’s participation in psalmody at Mass or in the Liturgy of the Hours as fully as I would like, I do have three observations: 1. In France the antiphonal response accompanying the Psalm after the first reading has been a great success. The people who attend Mass really participate in this antiphon and sing it repeatedly. By their repetition of it, they are able to take this antiphon with them into their daily life as a prayerful sentiment throughout the day. 2. In the religious communities of priests with lay brothers, the tradition from the Middle Ages until the twentieth century had been for the lay brothers to recite the Rosary in a low voice during the Divine Office. Now, with the adoption of the vernacular, they have entered into the celebration of the Divine Office.

30

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

3. A few Benedictine communities still think that they should retain the whole liturgy in Latin. I once asked a monk of one such community whether this wasn’t too difficult for their younger monks. He answered kindly, “This is a matter of internal forum — de foro interno.” At the end of the liturgy of the Word, before the Offertory, we find in the Sunday Mass the Prayer of the Faithful, which belongs to the most ancient Tradition of the Church32 and has been observed down to our time in Germany and in France. In the Middle Ages it was the only part of the Mass said in the vernacular, understood by the whole congregation. In regard to the Prayer of the Faithful I would like to mention something that happened to St Joan of Arc. When she was imprisonned in Rouen, her judges were questioning her in a way to get answers that would qualify her as a heretic, so that she could be condemned to be burnt. She was asked whether she was in the state of grace — in statu gratiae — and she responded, “If I am, please God keep me in it, and if I am not, please God bring me to it.” Such an answer came not only from an intelligent sanctity, but also from a sentence she remembered from the Sunday intercessions she was used to hearing, “We shall pray for those who are in the state of grace, so that God keeps them in it, and for those who are not, so that God brings them to it.”33 Let us pray that the liturgical texts we use today have the same kind of spiritual power in our lives!

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

31

2. Liturgical Singing : Preconciliar diversity and the change brought in by the liturgical movement and the liturgical reform. Between Trent and Vatican II there were so many diverse approaches to singing at Mass that a general overview in this short paper is impossible, but I can offer some examples of this diversity. As we all know, the German-speaking countries offer some beautiful examples. For instance, I remember a very small village in Tyrol where the peasants were accustomed to sing a Mozart “Messe.” Whether or not they sang it straight through the Canon of the Mass, I don’t remember. At any rate, it is clear that Pius X’s emphasis, while he was Patriarch of Venice, on active participation in the liturgy through singing (participatione attiva) did not at all include this kind of singing, and was even occasioned by instances like this one. In France there were at least two forms of music for the Mass, the French seventeenth century Gregorian, which remained popular in many rural parishes, and the restored Solesmes Gregorian. John XXIII, who during his years as papal nuncio in Paris heard both versions, had occasion later as Pope to receive a large French pilgrimage group at St Peter’s. Although the Capella Sistina had prepared to sing the Creed, the Pope himself began singing it according to a composition by Dumont. The whole congregation sang along with him. A totally opposite example of how music functioned at Mass before Vatican II is my home parish in Paris, which was the largest bourgeois congrega-

32

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

tion in the city. Every Sunday there were twelve read Masses, missae lectae, without any singing at all, and one sung Mass, missa cantata. It was the sung Mass that attracted the fewest people. The Dominican Aimon-Marie Roguet, at the time director of the Centre de pastorale liturgique in Paris, had occasion one Lent to preach in that parish. He noticed how small the attendance was at the sung Mass, and so he remarked on it to the pastor. The pastor in turn replied, “You realize, of course, that the singing is done for God!” In the present day the use of the vernacular has given rise to a great deal of singing, particularly for the Ordinary of the Mass and for the antiphon accompanying the Psalm after the first reading. But progress of this kind is not always accompanied by music of high quality. I would be delighted to learn more about the history of singing in English at Mass, especially in the United States, where singing at worship is so stressed in other Christian denominations, although they are probably not without their own difficulties in regard to the kinds of music that are used. 3. The use of the vernacular clarifies both the previous defects in the understanding of the Liturgy of Mass and the progress still needed. First, before Vatican II much about the liturgy was known but not understood enough. In the early 1950s, at the time that the Paschal vigil was restored by Pope Pius XII, a seminarian remarked to me, “Some years ago as an altar boy in a country parish

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

33

I, along with another server, were the only two people in the church besides the priest for the long Mass on Holy Saturday morning. After it was over, the priest said to us, ‘If a person understood today’s Mass, they would understand the whole of our religion!’” The first time I visited the United States was in 1954 when I came to teach at the University of Notre Dame. I remember being told that American altar boys all thought that at the beginning of Mass, toward the end of the Confiteor, they were to say, “me a cow boy, me a cow boy, me a Mexican cow boy,” instead of “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” Whether or not this statement was true, we discovered that the traditional use of Latin certainly had its consequences. Let me list a few of them: a) A somewhat excessive stress on minor prayers in the Ordinary of the Mass. Because these prayers had de facto become an important part of the devotion of the faithful at Mass — for example the Orate fratres — Pope Paul VI asked us to be careful not to suppress too many of them, even though, according to the tradition, they were private prayers of the priest-celebrant. b) People forgot to a large extent the spiritual value of the three proper prayers of every Mass (the collect, super oblata, and postcommunio). When these prayers began to be said in the vernacular, regardless of the spiritual value of many of them, their style and content seemed just too difficult to many of the priests and faithful, so that in some

34

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

countries the temptation was great to replace the text of these prayers with new ones. Consequently, new prayer texts were approved for English and Italian languages. Leaving aside any discussion of the general problems of liturgical translations, I would like to express my preference for the suggestion Thomas Aquinas gave to Pope Urban IV about what he calls “the task of a good translator: officium boni translatoris,” namely, “to hold in unison the meaning of the original text and the proper character — proprietas — of the language into which it is being translated.”34 c) The essential value, for the eucharistic life of the priests and of the whole congregation, not only of the words of consecration, but of the Eucharistic Prayer as such, needed to be recognized again and once more to become the focus of their eucharistic spirituality. That the central prayer of the Mass was once again named “the Eucharistic Prayer” resulted from convergent work of French and German liturgists such as Duchesne, Cagin, and Casel. When we use the term Eucharistic Prayer (prex eucharistica), as the 1970 Missal does,35 we recall how, according to the medieval and Tridentine Missal, the Canon of the Mass was read in silence. In the twentieth century it became clear that both Preface and Canon were parts of a single prayer, which for many centuries had been said or sung aloud, and that the central and essential value of the consecratory words, the words of Christ pronounced by the priest in persona Christi, 36 did not allow us to forget the importance of the other parts of the prayer. And when we

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

35

consider the words in persona Christi, which were given great importance by Thomas Aquinas to express the role of the priest in the Eucharistic consecration, we have to remember that the priestcelebrant’s role is to be submissive to the words of Christ and not the reverse. This submission to the words of Christ shows how important the directive is that concelebrating priests pronounce the words of consecration in a low voice. d) Renewed perception of the importance of the Eucharistic Prayer indicated that the thanksgiving dimension of the Eucharist had almost been forgotten. At the time of Vatican II the French liturgist Louis Bouyer suggested that rather than our teaching about the Eucharist, we had to receive the teaching it has to offer.37 Even if some Fathers of the Church have introduced their “théologie sur l’Eucharistie” within the text of their Eucharistic Prayers, Bouyer’s idea corresponds to the fundamental patristic theme of mystagogy, meaning that we have to be taught by the Sacraments. This suggests that we should not direct our spiritual attention exclusively to eucharistic presence and sacrifice nor separate offering from thanksgiving, but that we consider the sacrifice within the unity of the Paschal Mystery, and that we pursue this Paschal movement to its conclusion in the Parousia. Charles Dodd, the great Welsh Protestant biblical scholar, was so impressed by the inclusion of an eschatological reference within the anamnesis of the principal Greek “anaphoras” that he discovered in them the idea of “realized eschatology”38 which, in my opinion, is not

36

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

far removed from the words of the supplication — the Supplices — within the Roman Canon: “we ask that your holy angels take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven -jube haec perferri... in sublime altare tuum in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae.” I once asked Josef Andreas Jungmann what he thought about it, but Jungmann, who had little interest in Greek liturgies, said only, “Habeant sibi!” (“Let them keep that for themselves”). e) Although the Constitution on the Liturgy made no special mention of the Eucharistic Prayer and of its recitation in the vernacular, within a few years it appeared necessary to include more than one Eucharistic Prayer in the Roman Rite, as in the Eastern Rites. Some consideration was given to the possibility of translating one of the Greek anaphoras for use in the Roman rite, but this was discarded in view of the difficult theological question of the connection between the epiclesis and the words of consecration. Instead, the preference was to introduce into the Eucharistic Prayers an epicletic structure divided into two parts. One epicletic petition for consecration was placed before the words of consecration, another epicletic petition, for sanctification through communion, after them.39 The liturgical reform had to be a reception, not only of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, but also of the whole of Vatican II, which includes a deep sense both of Tradition and of the Christian East. In the case of the epicletic paragraphs one may ask whether they have yet entered our eucharistic spirituality deeply enough.

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

37

In this context I would like to include a comment by Yves Congar when he spoke about the christomonism40 of late medieval theology, with the accompanying risk of paying too little attention to the Holy Spirit. In any case, time is needed for such a spiritual assimilation! On the other hand, once when I was speaking at Lourdes to some simple people from Burgundy on a pilgrimage there, I raised the possibility of administering baptism by immersion, a form of the rite that shows much more clearly how in baptism we are washed of Original Sin and born into God’s life, an elderly woman turned to her neighbor and said, “Why didn’t they tell us this before?” f) The preparation for Communion after the Eucharistic Prayer takes place principally through common singing or recitation of the Our Father and the sign of peace. It seems that this singing together or reciting the Our Father in common, rather than having the priest alone recite it on behalf of the whole Church in persona Ecclesiae, was quickly understood by almost everybody, even French traditionalists. On the other hand, I do not know whether even today the typical congregation fully appreciates the significance of asking for heavenly bread, and also the profound connection between the Our Father’s petition for the forgiveness of sins and the importance of sacramental confession in Christian life. At the same time, in making this observation I do not intend to deny the spiritual value of exchanging the sign of peace.

38

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

Perhaps we should also mention the spiritual benefit that many priests and faithful have found in the Communion antiphons of the new Missal, even when they are only read. Such a benefit was clear in the pre-Gregorian centuries, when the latin text was still readily understood by the congregation. Dom Jean Claire of Solesmes told me that the melody of the Communion antiphon of the First Sunday of Easter (dominica in albis), “Extend your hand and see the places of the nails — Extende manum tuam et cognosce loca clavorum” (cf Jn 20,25), was most likely composed in the early 6th century, a period when communicants probably received communion in their hand. In other words, at the same time as they were opening their own hands for communion they heard these words of Christ to Thomas. A few years ago Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise, O.F.M. Cap., Bishop of San Luis in Argentina, published a book against receiving Communion in the hand, which was translated in French: La Communion dans la main. Documents et histoire.41 The “histoire” referred to in the subtitle focuses only on recent discussion of the issue, showing no interest in what Pius V in his promulgation of the Tridentine Missal called, “the rule of the holy Fathers — the norma sanctorum Patrum.” Bishop Laise says nothing about the history of this practice in the Roman liturgy of the first millenium, which I have studied in a paper published in Rome in 1978. This paper was subsequently reproduced in my book La liturgie dans l’histoire.42

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

39

g) The Calendar of the Saints. If we were simply to follow the sequence of the chapters of the Constitution on the Liturgy, it would be permissible to omit a discussion of the importance assigned to the calendar of saints. But we are also aware of the theological and spiritual value of celebrating Masses in honor of the saints and praying for the dead. I would like to consider for a moment, first, why celebrations of this kind are important, and second, the need to keep devotion to the saints subordinate to devotion to the Paschal Mystery. When the renowned French medieval historian Jacques Le Goff was in the process of publishing his book, La naissance du purgatoire (The Birth of Purgatory),43 I told him that in my opinion the central question had to do, not with the birth of Purgatory and its roots both in Irish spirituality and in the theology of the 12th century, but with the development, very early on in the history of Christian eucharistic liturgy, of the distinction between the departed who need of our prayers, and those whom we can ask to pray for us. I told him that the first time I visited the Dominican parish church at Tallaght near Dublin, on a Saturday evening I noticed near the main altar the coffin of somebody to be buried the following Monday. I said, “Maybe somebody thinks that the dead person will receive grace from the Masses offered this Sunday.” A Dominican theologian there replied, “That’s what we all think!” The other question we have to consider is the proper balance between devotion to the saints and devotion to the Paschal Mystery. St. Pius V and St. Pius X both insisted on this balance, as did the

40

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

Constitution on the Liturgy 44 and the liturgical reform in general, as can be seen both in the preeminence given to the Sunday liturgy and in the distinction between Obligatory and Optional Memorials. I will not go into the question whether the nineteen celebrations that appear in the calendar of the third edition of the Roman Missal(2000)45 pay sufficient attention to this point. The saints definitely help us to understand something of God’s holiness, but it is not quite right to sing about our Lady the way we French did when I was a child, “Au ciel j’irai la voir un jour” (To heaven I will go to see her one day). We should prefer the beautiful verse about the Assumption of Mary by Richard Crashaw, the English convert of the 17th century, “Heaven must go home!”46

IV. FUNDAMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY OF THE TIME NEEDED FOR THE RECEPTION OF ANY LITURGICAL REFORM IN THE LIFE OF PRAYER OF ALL CHRISTIANS AND PRIESTS 1. Liturgy takes time An adequate treatment of the question of reception of liturgical reforms requires, on the one hand, an awareness of the basic elements of personal piety received in our childhood or before our ordination. On the other, we also have to consider how much time it takes for every layman, priest, or bishop, to understand and fully assimilate a liturgical reform. If we have not yet fully understood any particular reform, we should be very careful not to say that the

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

41

reform should be reformed. I presented various illustrations of this principle in the Festschrift offered last year to Angelus Häussling, monk of Maria Laach.47 I have already mentioned how it takes time for us to receive any piece of information. We also have to consider how much time may be needed to understand and assimilate it. I gave various examples of this in my Häussling paper. One dealt with how communion is received during Mass, as suggested by the Tridentine Missal. At the time of the Council of Trent Communion during Mass for the faithful had altogether disappeared. But when the liturgists of Pius V realized that all postcommunions prayers were in the plural, they proposed to restore it. Even so, the first implementation of that new rubric took place only in the 18th century and even then it had to be encouraged by Pope Benedict XIV.48 And so, the central question put to us by the Missal of Pius V promulgated in 1570 and the Missal of Paul VI promulgated in 1970 is whether or not the fundamental piety of our childhood and of our ordination really and patiently opens us to a deeper and fuller participation in the sacred liturgy. 2. Liturgy and Society In addition to these cautions we also have to be aware of what connections may exist between society and the liturgical tradition as, for example, was the case, in France and in Italy, in regard to the Calendar of Saints. When the liturgical Calendar was revised, I remember hearing a man in Paris saying to a bartender named Philip, “So they changed your saint’s day!” If the two men were Catholics,

42

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

they probably were not practicing, but still they felt they had a kind of right to be respected by the Church’s calendar. Similarly, two Canadian sociologists, Lemieux and Montminy, report in Le catholicisme québecois 2000 that in Quebec, although practising Catholics comprise only about 5% of the population, 80% considers itself Catholic. I likewise heard that there were so many reactions in Italy of the same nature that Pope Paul VI considered whether or not he had to change something in that liturgical law.49 3. Liturgical reforms sometimes affect the prayer life of all Christians At the Council of Trent, for example, there was a heated discussion about the language to be used for the Our Father and the Hail Mary. In Latin-speaking countries everyone had to say the prayers in Latin, but in Germany they were said in the vernacular.50 A few years ago in France Protestants asked our bishops for a translation of the Our Father — Pater noster — which we would be able to say together. My advice to the bishops was that we ought to say “Thou” to God as was done in the Middle Ages, and as the Protestants still did, and to correct the translation of ne nos inducas in tentationem (“lead us not into temptation”). From the seventeenth century onward the French translation had been “ne nous laisse pas succomber à la tentation”(do not let us succomb to temptation). A well-known Catholic specialist in Aramaic told me that it was absolutely clear for him that the meaning of the Aramaic was indeed, as he had heard when he was a child, “ne nous

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

43

laisse pas succomber” and that the Greek translation was wrong and needed to be corrected. I did not dare to ask him whether his opinion came from his science or from his childhood experiences. At any rate, I also advised the bishops to make no changes in the French text of the Hail Mary, which still has “je vous salue Marie,” and the words “priez pour nous pauvres pécheurs” (pray for us poor sinners). As the Hail Mary is not exactly a liturgical text, the Congregation for Divine Worship will probably not ask for a correction. 4. Frequency of the Eucharist About the frequency of the celebration of the Mass and the way a priest celebrates, we have to pay attention both to history and to differences among various countries in our own time. In regard to history,51 we know that in the thirteenth century a priest who celebrated Mass every day was considered a saint. Consequently, the chief novelty of the Tridentine Missal, according to Jungmann, was the way in which it considered the private Mass as the fundamental form, the Grundtyp, of all eucharistic celebration. In France, at the end of the seventeenth century, it was commonly acknowledged that celebrating Mass daily was the sign of “a good priest.” I am unable to judge whether this view was also common among German, Spanish, or Irish Catholics. Those who were involved in the liturgical movement during the fifteeen years prior to the Council probably would say that concelebration was seen then as the meeting point of priestly piety and the liturgical movement. For example, the Bishop of

44

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

Lourdes asked Pius XII for permission for concelebration at the Lourdes grotto in order that every priest would be able to offer Mass there. In a postcard conveying the Pope’s blessing, Fr. Bea let me know that at first reading Pius XII was not opposed to this request by the Bishop of Lourdes. At any event, the decision of the Council authorizing concelebration was received by the Church largely as a blessing, especially with respect to the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday when priests gather around the bishop of the diocese. Furthermore, the revised Code of Canon Law (1983) expanded the possibilities for concelebration originally granted by Sacrosanctum Concilium. I would be interested in knowing more about how concelebration has been received thus far in this country.

V. RECEPTION OF OTHER PARTS OF THE LITURGY 1. The Liturgy of the Hours Concerning the Divine Office, the “Liturgy of the Hours,” I would like to state at least one fact and then ask one question. The fact is that within religious orders, for instance the Cistercians and to some extent the Dominicans, the tradition since the Middle Ages had been that the lay brothers recited the rosary while attending the choral office, because they did not know Latin. Now the vernacular has opened to them a new and marvelous participation both in the liturgy and in the religious life of their order.

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

45

2. The Sacraments In regard to the Sacraments, since Vatican II, and especially in light of Lumen Gentium, we have been faced with a question about the importance of various Sacraments, which of course also affects reception of the liturgy. Even if we cannot go into the the matter deeply, we need at least to raise the issue of the relative importance of the various Sacraments, especially the Sacraments of Christian Initiation, Confirmation in particular, but also the Sacraments of Penance/Reconciliation and Holy Orders. a) Christian Initiators: I need not speak much about Christian Initiation and Confirmation, since much has been done in recent years by young liturgists such as the milanese Pierpaolo Caspani in La pertinenza teologica della nozione di iniziazione cristiana (Milano 1999), the Swiss Dominican Philip von Roten in his doctoral dissertation, The notion of mystagogy according to St John Chrysostom, and of course here in the U.S. by the work of Fr. Gerald Austin. The main point to be received is the unity of Christian Initiation which, although it is not found expressed in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, was set forth in the 1971 apostolic constitution of Paul VI on Confirmation, Divinae consortium naturae. In this document the Pope declares that “the unity of Christian Initiation must be clearly expressed”(ut unitas initiationis christianae in suo lumine collocetur) along with the mystagogical meaning52 of Christian Initiation, those Sacraments that give us knowledge of the faith.

46

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

b) Penance/Reconciliation: In regard to the reception of Vatican II’s teaching on the Sacraments a two-fold question faces us today: has the new understanding of Christian Initiation and of frequent Communion unduly lessened both the frequency of Confession and the number of vocations to priesthood? Was Vatican II’s teaching on the Sacraments received in the wrong way? Concerning the frequency of confession I remember that when I was about twelve years old the chaplain of my high school said to me, “You know, you are not obliged to go to confession before you receive communion on every Sunday!” I am sure that it wasn’t my family that suggested this practice to me, but that I picked it up from the other children. Some thirty years later, when a common recitation of the Confiteor (“I confess to almighty God”) was proposed for the beginning of Mass in the new Order of the Mass, Pope Paul VI wanted to know whether it was clear that this recitation was devotional and not sacramental. The response of the theologians was definite: it is devotional. In his book Archbishop Bugnini deals with this question, but not very clearly.53 I hope now, however, that it is clear for everybody! Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, shed much light on the Sacrament of Penance — Sacramentum Paenitentiae, and we have to pay attention to it in our reading of the Introduction to the New Ritual, especially the line from the Constitution that reads, “The Church, embracing sinners in her bosom, at once holy” – we musn’t forget that the Church is holy — “and at the same

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

47

time always in need of being purified (Ecclesia sancta simul et semper purificanda), follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.”54 I would like to reflect on this statement in light of both the meaning of absolutio in Christian Latin and St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on the effect of sacramental absolution. In pre-Christian Roman law absolutio of a fault did not mean that the fault was forgiven, but that the judge found that the accused person had not committed the fault, and that therefore he or she had to be declared innocent. Consequently, the use of the word absolutio in the Sacrament meant that it was clear for Christians that the Sacrament of Penance makes them innocent.55 If I understand correctly the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, who of course was not as clever as I am in the history of ancient Latin, he thought that the Sacrament not only forgives our sin, it also makes us able to love God completely anew. So we may say that in order to be holy and to be able to call the present world to conversion to the Good News, the Church itself needs constantly to be purified, semper purificanda ut sit sancta. c) Holy Orders: With respect to the priesthood we know that after Sacrosanctum Concilium had insisted on active participation in the Liturgy, the Constitution on the Church shed additional light on the common priesthood of all the baptized within divine worship, but also affirmed, in the same line as Pius XII, the essential distinction between the common priesthood of the faithful and the sacerdotal ministry of priests: “Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the

48

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless ordered to one another (Sacerdotium commune fidelium et sacerdotium ministeriale seu hierarchicum, licet essentia et non gradu tantum differant, ad invicem tamen ordinantur).”56 Neither G. Philips57 nor Y. Congar have commented on this sentence clearly enough, but now we do have the interpretation by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n°1547. It is not the task of the present paper to consider the various questions that have arisen around priestly celibacy and the ordination of women. The main issue here might be that too much emphasis in the past was placed on the authority and power of the priest, and not enough on his vocation as a servant. I would express an intense, personal commitment to the following understandings found in Vatican II and in Tradition: a) First, Vatican II rediscovered the unity between the ministry of the eucharistic sacrifice and the ministry of the Word. How could a Friar Preacher such as myself, who thinks that he is by vocation a minister of the Word, give anything but a strong response to such a rediscovered unity? And it strikes me as certain that such a response does not belong to just one type of priest. b) Second, without entering directly into the question of priestly celibacy, I would appeal to what I would call the spiritual and vocational aspect of the ministry of the Sacraments. First, in regard to Penance. You perhaps know that since the Gregorian reform of the eleventh century, the papal emblem

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

49

has been the keys. However, before that time the emblem was the rooster whose crowing caused Peter to weep. Those of you who have visited Rome may have seen the doors of the basilica of St. Sabina carved during the lifetime of St Augustine. There we have the oldest image of the crucified Christ and with it the conversion of St. Peter by the rooster. Since then the rooster has been the symbol both of Peter and of the sacramental minister of Penance. St Ambrose, who converted St Augustine, says that the minister of Penance is to be “the rooster singing — gallus mysticus,”58 calling to conversion just as Peter was called by the rooster. It strikes me that priests today have to be as good at being sacramental roosters as Jean-Marie Vianney, the parish priest in Ars, was in his day. Prior to the Reformation every church building in Europe had a rooster on its tower, and even in our time, when people ask me what it means, I tell them that the rooster is asking them, “How long has it been since your last confession?” Of course we are aware of the distinction between the confession of mortal sin needed before going to communion, and the confession that may be useful for strengthening our conversion sacramentally. Regarding the ministry of the Sacraments, we also have to pay attention to the eucharistic sacrifice. Is the ministry of the sacrifice to be accompanied by the desire to participate in it, as some holy priests have desired to take part in the sacrifice of Christ? We remember John-Paul II in his 1986 letter to the priests: “How fitting it is for a priest to offer himself in sacrifice to God every morning!”59

50

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

c) Third, permit me to quote Pope John-Paul once again. When he visited Paris and preached on St. Peter’s feastday in the Cathedral of Notre Dame, he recalled the question Christ asked Peter, “Do you love me?,” and then he said, “This question never leaves me — cette question ne me quitte jamais.”

VI. RECEPTION OF THE LITURGY CONSTITUTION IN A WORLD THAT HAS CHANGED As we reflect on the reception of the Liturgy Constitution in our personal prayer and in our pastoral activity we must be aware of two important points: 1) the change that took place within the clergy and in some of the faithful at the time of Vatican II; and 2) the shift of cultural understandings in our present world. 1. The change within the clergy at the time of Vatican II. In this section what I refer to are regions of Europe where, at the time of Vatican II, there were a lot of priests of a strong and sometimes, as it were, narrow faithfulness to the rubrics. Within a short time, instead of adopting a more balanced attitude, these priests moved to the opposite extreme. Furthermore, in doing so they paid no attention to their congregations nor to the time needed for any change in their prayer life. To give only one example, it seems to me that the part of the world which produced the largest number of Eucharistic Prayers in the years after Vatican II was Holland. In cases like

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

51

this, an unsatisfactory reception of the Liturgy Constitution may have been caused not by the liturgical reform itself, but by the lack of balance or understanding of some pastors. I am not able to address this aspect of reception of the Liturgy Constitution in regard to the United States, and I wonder if any study has been done on the topic here. Such a study would be useful! 2. The Western world has changed and is changing. It would be a great mistake to think that at the time of Vatican II the world did not want any change and was disturbed by the Council. Around the time of the Council, or a few years before, a profound change had already begun and the Council believed that the Gospel and the Church had to make themselves present to each and every age in human history, including the present. This was true for the Liturgy Constitution and even more so for the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World”(in mundo huius temporis). The world has changed a lot in the last forty years and continues to change. Last year I visited two great theologians in the Vatican, and I suggested that the Vatican Theological Commission reflect on the topic, “Gaudium et Spes Today.” They seemed to agree that a study of this kind would really be useful. It is true that we have all been sent to announce the perennial good news of the Gospel to a world that is always new. Does that mean that the liturgy has to be changed again? Let me quote the wonderful words of Pope Paul VI just before the first celebration according to the Novus Ordo of the Mass: “It is,” he said,”a

52

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

further step of the living Tradition.”60 In other words, we must not be looking for a permanent change in the liturgy. At the same time I would like to quote also from a discussion I had with Père Congar on Vatican II’s Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life (Perfectae Caritatis). In paragraph 2 of that document we are told that any adaptation of religious life to a new time and a new situation requires that religious orders return to their original charisms. Congar immediately observed, “This is the key to Vatican II in general, the key to the Living Tradition.”61 It is clear to all of us that it is the key to the whole liturgical reform as well. At the end of Vatican II Giuseppe Dossetti (1913-1996), an Italian University professor who later became a priest, had an important role. In a lecture he gave at the time he expressed the opinion that what he called the “eucharistic ecclesiology” of the Liturgy Constitution sheds a lot of light on the Constitution on the Church,62 and he also wondered whether the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World was not overly optimistic. We obviously have to be careful not to base an interpretation of the whole of Vatican II on a single document. However, even if it is clear that the Western world no longer lives within the Church as it did at the time of the Gregorian reform and with the same ecclesiology, all Catholic Christians, especially priests, have to celebrate the reformed Vatican II liturgy in such a way that it is clear that the liturgy fully fosters the way of life proposed by the Gospel, and does so in a way that renders it attractive to a pagan world.

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

53

If we look back to the last half century of the Church’s liturgical life in our various countries, could we not say that, in spite of a few divergences and the lack of sufficient time needed to understand the liturgical reform deeply enough, the main effect of Vatican II on our spiritual life has been our experience of a deeper participation in the liturgy?

Notes 1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

“The Catholic Liturgy within the Unity of the Living Tradition,” Music and Liturgy (The Society of Saint Gregory), August 1989, 106-115. Y. Congar, “La réception comme réalité ecclésiologique,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 1972, 270; = Église et Papauté 1994, 230. Cf. G. Alberigo — J.-P. Jossua, O.P., dir. La réception de Vatican II (Cogitatio Fidei 134), Paris, 1988. “À propos du nombre des lectures à la Messe,” Mélanges Chavasse ;= Revue des sciences religieuses (Strasbourg) 1984, 42-51. Roma II, 1967, 21-61 = “La question du système des lectures de la liturgie byzantine.” “De la messe évangélique de Luther au nouvel Ordo Missae,” Un évêque parle. Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, Écrits et allocutions 1963-1975. 3e éd., Jarzé 1976, pp. 275-290. Marcel Lefebvre, une vie. Étampes: Clovis, 2002. Kerygma und Dogma 2002:3, 203-237. Cf. also C. Manziana, “La formation liturgique de Giovanni Battista Montini,” in Le rôle de G.B. Montini — Paul VI dans la réforme liturgique (Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto Paolo VI, 5), Brescia 1987, 23-31. N. Giampietro, Il Cardinale Ferdinando Antonelli e gli sviluppi della riforma liturgica dal 1948 al 1970. Roma 1998. Cf. P.-M. Gy, “Bulletin de Liturgie,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 1999, 576. “Le rôle de Paul VI dans la réforme liturgique,” same volume, pp.59-73.

54 11 12

13

14

15 16 17

18

19 20

21

22

23

24

25 26

27

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

Mein Weg zur Liturgiereform 1936-1975, Freiburg, 1993. Cf. P.-M. Gy,”Le nouveau rituel romain du mariage,” La Maison Dieu 99, 1969. Notitiae 1969, 3-12. R. Kaczynski, ed. Enchiridion documentorum instaurationis liturgicae I, 1976, pp. 421430. The Holy See Vatican Collections, World Exposition Brisbane 1988,n°74; R.M. Wiltgen,”The Prefecture Apostolic of Terra Australis 15.7.1681,” Hemisphere, July 1981. Liturgical Law: New Style, New Spirit, Chicago, 1977. New Liturgy, New Laws, Collegeville, 1980. H. Müllejans, Publicus und Privatus im Römischen Recht und im älteren Kanonischen Recht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Unterscheidung Ius publicum und Ius privatum (Münchener Theologische Studien. Kanonistische Abteilung, 14). München, 1961. Cf. P.-M. Gy, “Le ‘nous’ de la prière eucharistique,” La Maison Dieu 191 (1992), 7-14. Institutio generalis, n°s 21, 22 27. J.-P. Jossua — Y. Congar, La liturgie après Vatican II, Paris, 1967, 241-282. Ch. Pottie, “La doctrine de l’Ecclesia sujet intégral de la célébration dans les livres liturgiques depuis Vatican II,” La Maison Dieu 176 (1988), 117-132. St. Pius X recommends “active participation in the holy mysteries,” which is “the first and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit” (C. Braga–A. Bugninied., Documenta ad Instaurationem liturgicam spectantia, Roma, 2000, p. 34. Cf. Jungmann’s commentary on Sacrosanctum Concilium, 49 (Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, I, 1966, p. 52). Constitution Veterum Sapientia (2.22.1962), Acta Apostolicae Sedis1962, 129-135. Acta Synodalia I,1, 314-15. (Missarum Sollemnia, 4th ed., Wien, 1958, I, 466), 270305. Cf. W.C. Van Unnik,” Dominus vobiscum. The Background of a liturgical Formula,” A.J.B. Higgins ed., New Testament

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

55

Essays. Studies in Memory of T.W. Manson, Manchester, 1959. The same question had been studied by H. Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister im nachapostolischen Zeitalter bis auf Irenäus, Freiburg, 1899. Congregazione per il Culto Divino, Atti del convegno dei presidenti e segretari delle Commissioni nazionali di Liturgia, Venti anni di riforma liturgica: Bilancio e prospettive. Città del Vaticano 23-28 ottobre 1984. Padova, 1986. Cf. Norberg, “À quelle époque a-t-on cessé de parler latin en Gaule ?,” Annales 1966, 346-366 (= Au seuil du moyen âge, Padova, 1974). C.Vogel – R.Elze, ed., Le Pontifical romano-germanique du 10e s. 1963,I, 27. Pontificale Romanum...De ordinatione diaconi, presbyteri et episcopi; Ed. typica 1968, 28. Cf. P. De Clerck, La ‘prière universelle’ dans les liturgies latines anciennes (Liturgiewissentschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 62). Münster, 1977. Cf. P.-M. Gy, “Signification pastorale des prières du prône,” La Maison Dieu (1952), 125-136. Contra errores Graecorum, Prooemium: “Servet sententiam et proprietatem linguae ad quam transfert” (Leonine Edition, 40, A 71). Cf. P.-M. Gy, “De l’Eucharistie-Prière au pain et au vin eucharistiés,” A. Heinz — H. Rennings, ed., Gratias agamus. Studien zum eucharistischen Hochgebet. Für Balthasar Fischer, Trier, 1992, 111-116. Cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 33 and various texts of Lumen Gentium. B.-D. Marliangeas, Clés pour une théologie du ministère. In persona Christi, in persona Ecclesiae. Paris, 1978; L. Loppa, In persona Christi, nomine Ecclesiae. Linee per una teologia del ministero nel concilio ecumenico Vaticano II e nel magisterio postconciliare(1962-1985) (Corona lateranensis 34). Roma, 1985. Eucharistie. Théologie et spiritualité de la prière eucharistique, 1966, chapter I: “Théologie sur l’Eucharistie et théologie del’Eucharistie.” (cf. P.-M. Gy, “La liturgie entre la fonction didactique et la mystagogie,” La Maison Dieu 177 (1988) 718, and the important doctoral dissertation of Philippe de

56

38

39

40

41

42

43 44 45 46

47

48

49

50 51

52

Pierre-Marie Gy,

O.P.

Roten, La mystagogie selon S. Jean Chrysostome (Fribourg, Suisse, in print). Apostolic Preaching, 1936. Cf. P.-M. Gy, “Spiritualité de la Communion d’après la liturgie,” La Maison Dieu 203 (1995) 39-49, especially p. 46. About the role of Vagaggini in this question, cf. P.-M. Gy, La Liturgie dans l’histoire, 220-221. “Pneumatologie ou ‘christomonisme’ dans la Tradition latine?,” Ecclesia a Spiritu sancto edocta. Mélanges Gérard Philips, Gembloux, 1970, 41-63. Paris: Centre international d’études liturgiques, 1999. Cf. my review in Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques (2001) 614. “Quand et pourquoi la communion dans la bouche a-t-elle remplacé la communion dans la main dans l’Église latine,” Gestes et paroles dans les diverses familles liturgiques, Roma, 1978, 117-121. = La liturgie dans l’histoire, Paris, 1990, 205-210. Paris, 1981. Chapter V. Cf. Braga, Ephemerides Liturgicae (2002) 263-284. Carmen Deo nostro (1652): “To the glorious Assumption of our Blessed Lady.” “Les réformes liturgiques et la sociologie historique de la liturgie,” M. Klöckener — B. Kranemann, ed. Liturgiereformen. Historische Studien zu einem bleibenden Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 88), Münster, 2001, I, 262-272. Cf. L. Paladini, “La controversia della Comunione intra Missam,” Miscellanea Mohlberg, Roma, 1948-49, I, 347-71; II, 341-47. Cf. A. Bugnini, La riforma liturgica (1948-1975), 2d ed., Roma, 1997, 14. P.-M. Gy, La Liturgie dans l’histoire, Paris, 1990, 155-156. Cf. P.-M. Gy, ed., Le prêtre et la fréquence de la célébration eucharistique 13e–18e s. (Centre d’études du Saulchoir, 7), Paris, 1999. Cf. P.-M. Gy, “La liturgie entre la fonction didactique et la mystagogie,” La Maison Dieu 177 (1989) 7-18.

Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms 53 54 55

56 57

58

59 60 61

62

57

La riforma liturgica, Roma,2 1997, 352. Lumen Gentium n°8 = Ordo Paenitentiae, n°3. Cf. P.-M. Gy, “Le prêtre et le ministère de la Pénitence et de la Réconciliation des pénitents,” Prêtres diocésains (1994), 371-376. Lumen Gentium n°10. L’Église et son mystère au IIe concile du Vatican, I, Paris, 1967, pp.138-150. Ambrose, Exameron V, 24, 91-92. Ambrose, On John’s Gospel, 13,38 (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio mediaevalis 9,624). Cf. P.-M. Gy, “Douleur des péchés et pénitence dans la théologie du 12e s.,” Annali di Scienze Religiose (Milano) 3 (1998), 125-132. Cf. his address to the bishops of Michigan 5/21/1998. 19 November 1969. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1969, 778. “L’Eglise, la tradition vivante et la Liturgie,” Revue de l’Institut catholique de Paris 67 (1994). — “Tradition vivante, réforme liturgique et identité ecclésiale,” La Maison Dieu 178 (1989), 93-106. Per una “Chiesa Eucaristica.” Rilettura della portata dottrinale della Costituzione liturgica del Vaticano II. Lezioni del 1965 (Testi e ricerche di scienze religiose. N.S. 29), Bologna, 2002.

THE PÈRE MARQUETTE LECTURES IN THEOLOGY

THE PÈRE MARQUETTE LECTURES IN THEOLOGY 1969 The Authority for Authority Quentin Quesnell 1970 Mystery and Truth John Macquarrie 1971 Doctrinal Pluralism Bernard Lonergan, S.J. 1972 Infallibility George A. Lindbeck 1973 Ambiguity in Moral Choice Richard A. McCormick, S.J. 1974 Church Membership as a Catholic and Ecumenical Problem Avery Dulles, S.J. 1975 The Contributions of Theology to Medical Ethics James Gustafson 1976 Religious Values in an Age of Violence Rabbi Marc Tannenbaum Director of National Interreligious Affairs 1977 Truth Beyond Relativism: Karl Mannheim’s Sociology of Knowledge Gregory Baum 1978 A Theology of ‘Uncreated Energies’ George A. Maloney, S.J. John XXIII Center for Eastern Christian Studies 1980 Method in Theology: An Organon For Our Time Frederick E. Crowe, S.J.

THE PÈRE MARQUETTE LECTURES IN THEOLOGY 1981 Catholics in the Promised Land of the Saints James Hennesey, S.J. 1982 Whose Experience Counts in Theological Reflection? Monika Hellwig 1983 The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark John R. Donahue, S.J. 1984 Should War be Eliminated? Philosophical and Theological Investigations Stanley Hauerwas 1985 From Vision to Legislation: From the Council to a Code of Laws Ladislas M. Orsy, S.J. 1986 Revelation and Violence: A Study in Contextualization Walter Brueggemann Eden Theological Seminary 1987 Nova et Vetera: The Theology of Tradition in American Catholicism Gerald Fogarty 1988 The Christian Understanding of Freedom and the History of Freedom in the Modern Era: The Meeting and Confrontation Between Christianity and the Modern Era in a Postmodern Situation Walter Kasper 1989 Moral Absolutes: Catholic Tradition, Current Trends, and the Truth William F. May 1990 Is Mark’s Gospel a Life of Jesus? The Question of Genre Adela Yarbro Collins

THE PÈRE MARQUETTE LECTURES IN THEOLOGY 1991 Faith, History and Cultures: Stability and Change in Church Teachings Walter H. Principe, C.S.B. 1992 Universe and Creed Stanley L. Jaki 1993 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Some Contemporary Issues Gerald G. O’Collins, S.J. 1994 Seeking God in Contemporary Culture Most Reverend Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B. 1995 The Book of Proverbs and Our Search for Wisdom Richard J. Clifford, S.J. 1996 Orthodox and Catholic Sister Churches: East is West and West is East Michael A. Fahey, S.J. 1997 ‘Faith Adoring the Mystery’: Reading the Bible with St. Ephræm the Syrian Sidney H. Griffith 1998 Is There Life after Death? Jürgen Moltmann 1999 Moral Theology at the End of the Century Charles E. Curran Elizabeth Scurlock University 2000 Is the Reformation over? Geoffrey Wainwright 2001 In Procession before the World: Martyrdom As Public Liturgy in Early Christianity Robin Darling Young

THE PÈRE MARQUETTE LECTURES IN THEOLOGY 2002 Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts Luke Timothy Johnson 2003 The Reception of Vatican II Liturgical Reforms in the Life of the Church Pierre-Marie Gy, O.P.

THE PÈRE MARQUETTE LECTURES IN THEOLOGY

About the Père Marquette Lecture Series The Annual Père Marquette Lecture Series began at Marquette University in the Spring of 1969. Ideal for classroom use, library additions, or private collections, the Père Marquette Lecture Series has received international acceptance by scholars, universities, and libraries. Hardbound in blue cloth with gold stamped covers. Uniform style and price ($15 each). Some reprints with soft covers. Regular reprinting keeps all volumes available. Ordering information (purchase orders, checks, and major credit cards accepted): Marquette University Press 1444 U.S. Route 42 P.O. Box 388 Ashland OH 44903 Order Toll-Free (800) 247-6553 fax: (419) 281 6883 Editorial Address: Dr. Andrew Tallon, Director Marquette University Press Box 1881 Milwaukee WI 53201-1881 phone: fax: internet: web:

(414) 288-7298 (414) 288-3300 [email protected] www.marquette.edu/mupress/