The Impact of The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council is one of the most influential documents on worship renewal in the twentieth century. It has resulted in vast changes in Roman Catholic worship and has also made a noticeable impact on Protestant worship, especially in the mainline denominations. The intent of the document is to call the church back to early Christian worship and spirituality.

The liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council has been the single most concrete and dynamic change within modern Roman Catholicism. The Magna Carta of this reform is the Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, issued on December 4, 1963 (referred to in this article as “S.C.”). This document was not only the first fruit of Vatican II, but also was one of its major contributions to the internal renewal of Christianity. Such importance, at least for the Catholic church, was stressed by Pope Paul VI when he promulgated the constitution: “Treated before others, in a sense it has priority over all others for its intrinsic dignity and importance to the life of the Church” (Address, December 4, 1963).

Formulation of the Liturgical Constitution

This document constituted the official and universal approval of a new synthesis between the doctrinal and pastoral agenda of the liturgy. Also, it helped to develop a new ecclesial vision, founded on biblical and patristic theology. This liturgical-pastoral movement, which intensified at the beginning of the century with Pius X (especially from 1903 to 1914), gave rise to different centers of study in France, Germany, and elsewhere and became progressively a European and American movement after the encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII (1947) and the international pastoral congress of Assisi (1956). This historical movement made possible the relatively simple preparation of the conciliar schema by an international commission of bishops and liturgical consultants. Under the direction of A. Bugnini, the preparatory liturgical commission approved the schema after four drafts and presented it to the president, Cardinal Cicognani, in January of 1962. Despite the many amendments made during the first fifteen general meetings of the council (fall of 1962), the original schema was accepted without substantial change. The biblical-patristic basis and the liturgical-pastoral vision of the movement had inaugurated a new ecclesiological horizon radically different from the defensive and juridical framework of the Council of Trent. The inherent value of the liturgical reform, which provided the theological tone and the pastoral horizon of the council, was seen as a sign of God and as a movement of the Spirit in the church (S.C., 43).

The goal of the constitution was the revival of Christian spirituality and pastoral life in bringing the faithful to the source of Christian life in the Christ mystery of the liturgy. The constitution was rooted in biblical theology and consequently provided the fundamental elements of a liturgical celebration in the framework of a new ecclesiology. Its development went hand in hand with the Constitution on the Church. This theological vision of the nature of worship was characterized by the criteria of reform and development, adaptation, and creativity, with concrete directives in regard to the sacraments and all liturgical exercises. The profound and ecclesiological vision centered around the priestly ministry of Christ in the mystery of the church and opened up new perspectives particularly regarding the role of the people of God in the local church.

From this paramount ecclesial perspective, important liturgical understandings evolved: the baptismal priesthood of the faithful, the full participation of the people at both tables, word and Eucharist, the importance of the sign of the assembly, the need for flexible ritual norms, relevant symbolism, and catholicity of worship rooted in tradition (unity and stability). All of these are exposed to the dialogue of inculturation in a church open to the world—to its creativity and its pluralism. In the light of the constitution, this new order of worship restored a more Roman and patristic structure, and it opened the way for the transcendent universality inherent in ecumenical pastoral praxis and theological thinking.

Implementation of the Reform

A month after the approval of the Constitution, Paul VI created the main organ of its implementation, the Concilium (January 25, 1964), headed by the renowned Cardinal G. Lecaro, with A. Bugnini as his secretary. The fundamental purposes of this official council, under the direct supervision of the pope, were to direct the correct and concrete application of the constitution in the reform of the liturgical books and to promote the conciliar magisterium through doctrinal and practical liturgical instructions. The international nature of the Concilium, formed by bishops and a body of internationally renowned experts with a few non-Catholic observers, made the liturgical reform a collegial enterprise. Following the spirit and directives of the council, this reform had to be rooted in tradition, and at the same time open to legitimate progress, responding pastorally to the needs of the people of our time and cultures. From 1965 on, an informative organ of the Concilium, the journal entitled Notitiae, was issued. A parallel Vatican office, the Congregation of Rites, officially issued the instructions of the Concilium until they both merged into the Congregation of Divine Worship (May 8, 1969). After a lengthy preparation of many interim directives and theological-pastoral instructions, the main work of the reform was promulgated, the Roman Missal of Paul VI (June 1970). Following not only the specific guidelines of the Constitution, but also the primary criteria and ecumenical scope of the whole body of conciliar doctrine, a thorough revision of all the rites and liturgical books was undertaken, and new ordines were issued from 1968 to 1978.

Although the liturgical restoration of the rituals was substantially accomplished by 1975, the suppression of the Congregation for Divine Worship that year and the dismissal of A. Bugnini as its secretary signaled a more direct institutionalization of the liturgical-pastoral movement by the Roman Curia.

At the level of the local church, the reform was thoroughly planned in Rome and, on the whole, enthusiastically implemented as its ancient texts were faithfully translated into more than 350 languages or dialects. However, the liturgy, in general, was only minimally adapted “to the genius and traditions of peoples” (S.C., 37–40). If, in one instance, episcopal conferences seemed to prevail in adapting the vernacular, the attempt to make the preservation of Latin a mandate of the council, at least in regard to the divine office of the bishops, was limited, for the most part, to establishing the structures of the new ordines and enforcing the liturgical norms issued by the Holy See. The trend toward uniformity and centralization now seemed apparent from the creation of the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship in 1975, and the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline for the Sacraments in 1988, and in the new Code of Canon Law (canon 1257) of 1983. This was so despite the mandate of the council to enter into communion with cultures and talents of peoples (S.C., 37; Gaudium et spec, 48).

The historical restoration was only partially achieved. A great challenge remained in regard to inculturation, especially in the non-Western world. Examples like the officially approved Roman rite for the church in Zaire and other experiments in the “third world” countries, were only the first attempts as symbolic and linguistic creativity, maintaining, however, the substantial unity of the Roman rites (S.C., 38).

The reform certainly constituted a strong movement of pastoral awareness and missionary concern in opening the spiritual treasure of liturgy to the people and making it the center of the life of the local church. By and large, the new order of worship was well received. Two factors seemed to be underlying causes of dissatisfaction: the lack of adequate liturgical catechesis [instruction] needed to invigorate the renewal of both worship and the community, and the impoverishment of the contemplative, religious and symbolic action of worship which calls for a continuous revival. Planned from above, the reform was then handed to the people. It was not sufficiently animated from below and made relevant to the spiritual needs of the people.

In regard to the possible celebration of the old Latin Tridentine Mass under very restricted circumstances and with the permission of the ordinary, the decision in Rome (1984) was seen as a sign of compromise. The impending crisis brought about by such sweeping reform in this most sensitive area of religious life revealed the need for a new phase of the liturgical movement of renewal from below.

Outcome and Future Directions

For Catholics, and even for many Protestants, the liturgical constitution has remained the undisputed charter yet to be fully implemented in its broad vision and goals. Despite the remarkable progress made through a mainly historical restoration from across a thousand years of evolving Christian worship, the primary goal of the pioneers of the liturgical movement and the conciliar fathers is yet to be realized in a credible and profound way. Reform of a more flexible and essential nature has been established, not without some polarizations and even contradictions; but from now on we foresee the prospect of perennial renewal in the celebration.

The work of a generation should not be considered the point of arrival, but rather the point of departure. Much lies ahead, and this demands new attitudes and a new reception on the part of the hierarchy and of the people. In biblical terms, “new wine must be poured into new wineskins” (Luke 5:38). This means more than “mere observance of laws,” a passive and rubrical reception of the changes. It means rather a creative assimilation of the fundamental dimensions of the liturgical renewal: on the one hand, biblical symbolism, the ecclesiology of communion, mystagogy (interpretation of the sacraments); and, on the other hand, an understanding of the anthropological grounding and the “mental grammar” of the religious experience of today’s people. If liturgy builds community, community makes liturgy.

Though an assessment of the reform is needed, it is difficult, because the reality of worship in the lives of people is a complex phenomenon that goes beyond the limits of the context of worship itself. Critics usually refer to three major areas of concern in the present crisis of worship: leadership, catechetics, and the emergence of new problems.

Leadership. Despite the many compromises and dilemmas of the reform (the most apparent being the rite of penance), the new rituals and the hundreds of documents issued in Rome provided both a flexible ritual which was normative and a theological-pastoral direction for the future. The constitution demanded not only a translation into the vernacular, and structural changes, but also adaptation, reception of the letter and the spirit of the reform, liturgical sensibility, and a new mind in promoting its ideals. A long-range need is the creativity of inculturation and indigenization. In this sense, the council has opened the door to new opportunities for liturgical growth, foreseeing a balance between the universal oversight by the primacy and the promotion of liturgical action by the episcopacy.

This collegial balance can foster decentralization and pluralism, safeguarding “the substantial unity of the Roman rite” (S.C., 37–47). However, because of the tight control from above, some bishops have made it the practice to show more interest in juridical approval of the changes than in facing the compelling spiritual needs of the people. The problems of the promotion of renewal of liturgical praxis certainly have been compounded by profound cultural transition and the new secular trends of the post-Vatican II years. In fact, as the World Council of Churches has acknowledged, “behind the crisis of worship there is a general crisis of faith” (Uppsala, 1968).

Catechetics. The underestimation of long-term liturgical catechetics has been a perennial problem reflected in the poor reception of the reform. The quality of participation in engaging liturgies depended on the preparation and renewal of the community. The crisis of meaning could stem not only from the irrelevant spirituality of ritual and textual mystification, and inadequate symbolic expression of the mystery but also from the lack of an experiential initiation into that mystery. In this respect, the new Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (1972) is a serious effort to cultivate the great potential of liturgical catechetics, but only if this most authentic and far-reaching reform is taken seriously.

New Problems. Finally, new problems emerge from several areas. The restoration itself seems too pragmatic, with the consequent impoverishment of the contemplative and festive sense of the mystery, and the translation of the old texts seems inadequate to a renewed spirituality. In addition, the new liturgy demands a faithful expression in the role of the presider, a renewed liturgical music, and good preaching. Moreover, the new liturgical vision projects unforeseen demands, especially from the self-discovery of the local church and the priesthood. Other unexpected developments could be added, such as the crisis of the oral confession, the priestless liturgies (Directory of the Congregation for Divine Worship, 1988), and the emergence of non-ordained ministries, especially the ministry of women and the global phenomenon of grassroots communities.

All these point to an unfinished agenda of the liturgical renewal and the need for ecclesiastical leadership which would further the dynamic spirit of the council. In fact, after a quarter-century of the promulgation of the liturgical constitution, “the work of liturgical reform and renewal remains at the heart of the Church’s life and mission” (National Council of Catholic Bishops, Promoting Liturgical Renewal: Guidelines for Diocesan Liturgical Commissions and Offices of Worship [Washington, D.C.: Secretariat, Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, 1988]). This renewal and reform will be chiefly along the two poles of the current liturgical dialogue: the anthropological-cultural pole, between human sciences and liturgical theology and praxis which will help us understand the concrete religious story and experience; and the ecclesiological pole, which through serious consideration of the common priesthood of the community-celebrant will renew a liturgy that builds community within and is expressed in active mission and ministry.

The liturgical reform of the council was highly positive, especially in its theological and pastoral dimensions. The ecclesiological dimension, developed in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is still in need of theological clarification and pastoral affirmation, especially from the perspective of the local and ministerial community. The anthropological and cultural dimensions, the least explicitly developed in the Vatican documents, will be an important part of the unfinished agenda of liturgical creativity and inculturation. Pastoral liturgical studies have been ever since in search of a deeper understanding of a phenomenology of worship that embodies the essential fullness of Christian belief and the living religious traditions.