Category: Church History

9 min read

Church History

Myths and Facts About the Council of Trent

D.D. Emmons

July 16, 2021 7:00 am July 16, 2021

9 min read

15638 views

Comments Off

9 min read

“The latest ecumenical councils — Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II — applied themselves to clarifying the mystery of the faith and undertook the necessary reforms for the good of the…

“The latest ecumenical councils — Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II — applied themselves to clarifying the mystery of the faith and undertook the necessary reforms for the good of the Church, solicitous for the continuity with the apostolic tradition.” — Pope Blessed John Paul II, Discourse, Oct. 22, 1998

In the middle of the 16th century, the Catholic Church was in need of reform and renewal, and while the Church acknowledged these problems and had begun reforms, the corrective actions were not quick enough or deemed serious enough to stem large numbers of Catholics from leaving the Church. Martin Luther’s revolt and the subsequent Protestant revolution in the mid-1500s accelerated the reforms that were eventually realized through the Council of Trent. This council, the 19th ecumenical council in Church history, not only dealt with corruption but, more importantly, effectively refuted the heretical teachings and anti-Catholic attacks launched by Protestants.

Few ecumenical councils have left more of a long-term impact on defining and reforming the Catholic Church than did the council held in several different sessions at Trent, Italy, between 1545 and 1563. From the opening to closing ceremonies, the Council of Trent lasted 18 years, but the bishops were in session for just a little more than three years. Of course, the council was not intended to be spread over 18 years, but the work of the bishops was interrupted by plague, wars, the deaths of four popes and a lack of interest from Pope Paul IV (1555-1559), who thought he could achieve reforms without the council.

The results of that historic gathering are still debated by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, but the debates are matched by a host of myths as to what the council fathers at Trent did or did not do.

One long-running myth claims that the popes of the 16th century, fearing a loss of prestige and power, resisted calling a general council to deal with Church abuses and corruption. While 15th- and 16th-century popes were indeed cautious, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) tried three times to convoke a Churchwide council. His efforts were repeatedly stymied by political squabbles and unenthusiastic support from European monarchs and princes.

Pope Paul III first summoned a council in 1537 to be held at Mantua, Italy. Emperor Charles V, ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, allegedly did not like the location. In the end, the city of Trent was chosen, and the council finally opened in December 1545. In sum, there long had been discourse about the need for a Church council, but it was the monarchs, not the popes, who delayed the event. This, of course, is just one of the myths associated with the Council of Trent

Myth: Trent ended the practice of indulgences.

Fact: The practice of indulgences was not ended, continues today and is defined in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (see Nos. 1471-1484). The XXV session of Trent affirmed Church authority to issue indulgences and condemned “those who assert that they [indulgences] are useless or who deny that the Church has the power to grant them.” The council did eliminate the misuse and the so-called selling of indulgences which Martin Luther (and others) found repugnant.

Myth: Trent added seven books to the Old Testament.

Fact: Beginning in the fourth century there was Churchwide consensus that the Old Testament contained 46 books. That number of books is identified in the ancient Alexandrian (Christian) list of Scriptures as opposed to the Palestinian (Jewish) list that has fewer books. The decision to favor the Alexandrian list was subscribed to at the Council of Hippo in 393 and reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397 (these two councils were smaller in nature and are not listed among the Church’s 21 ecumenical councils). When Luther’s followers translated the Bible into German, they left out the books of Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch, as well as parts of Daniel and Esther. Protestants also made changes to the New Testament text which, like the Old Testament omissions, conflicted with their beliefs.

Myth: The Council of Trent directed Catholics not to read the Bible.

Fact: This is not true. The bishops confirmed that the Latin Vulgate Bible, in use by Christians for over a thousand years, was the correct version for Catholics to use. It is true that the Church fathers at Trent were concerned about the numerous new translations of Scripture that were filled with error and misinformation and lacked proper and authentic notes. Consequently, they did mandate that only with permission of the pope could versions other than the Vulgate be read.

Myth: Trent resulted in sweeping changes to Catholic teaching.

Fact: There were no changes made to Catholic teaching at the Council of Trent. The No. 1 priority was to defend clearly Catholic beliefs under attack by Protestants, which included: the belief that Christ instituted seven sacraments, not two as asserted by Luther; that justification was achieved by faith and good works, not by faith alone; that the deposit of faith included both the sacred Scriptures and sacred Tradition, not the Scriptures alone; that Communion of one kind for laypeople is sufficient to receive the Real Presence; that the traditional teachings on transubstantiation and original sin are correct; that purgatory does exist; that Masses for the dead are appropriate. These were affirmations, not changes, to Catholic beliefs. In a like manner, the conciliar decrees that defended the Mass were based on unchanging truths and revelation, not on innovation.

Myth: Trent “damned to hell” those who do not agree with the decrees they issued.

Fact: The canons, or decrees, issued by Trent all include the term “anathema.” For example, the Council of Trent, session XXII, canon V, reads: “If anyone saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate Masses in honor of the saints and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends, let him be anathema.” The word anathema is a Greek word meaning to separate, suspend or set aside, not “damn to hell.” The Church does cut off or excommunicate Catholics who consciously and publicly deny the canons of Trent because the canons affirm the teachings of Christ. These Catholics are welcomed back when willing to be reconciled with the Church’s teachings.

Myth: The Council of Trent acknowledged that women have souls.

Fact: This was and is the most far-fetched of any myth associated with the council. That women have souls was never questioned by the Church, nor was it addressed by the bishops at Trent. This wild accusation seems to have its roots in St. Gregory of Tours’ “History of the Franks” (Book VIII, Ch. 20). This history records that at the Synod of Mâcon in 528 one of the bishops questioned whether the Latin word homo, or man, as used in the Old Testament, includes both male and female. The issue was clarified that indeed women are included in the term. There was never an official canon or decree released, and whatever was discussed had nothing to do with whether or not women have a soul. In the 17th century, anti-Catholics attempted to distort the discussion at Mâcon and publicly claimed that the Mâcon bishops had formally addressed — even voted — as to whether or not women have a soul. Through the years this myth has been exacerbated and skewed so as to connect it with the council at Trent. Even today some Internet sites claim that the Church once debated whether or not women have souls.

Myth: Trent resulted in a rigid Church, one that lacks both diversity and stymies fresh ideas.Fact: The bishops at Trent, like all Catholic bishops, saw themselves as guardians of the deposit of faith, the faith of Jesus Christ. What was true when Jesus walked the earth was true in the 16th century and is true today, and the Church makes no apologies for that position. Since the opening session of Trent there have been 44 popes, each with his own perspective, each with his own administration, each with his own ideas — but none have broken with the teachings of Jesus.

The Council of Trent and the Reform of the Church

While Church fathers at Trent clarified but did not change Catholic teachings, they did make many lasting reforms in the organization and administration of the Church. These reforms included:

– Ending the practices of simony, nepotism and pluralism.

– Limiting bishops to control of only one diocese or holding more than one ecclesiastical office at a time, which had not previously been the case. Bishops were expected to reside and govern their diocese and regularly visit each parish; lengthy absences required the pope’s approval. Every bishop was obligated to maintain high moral standards, live frugally and avoid excess.

– Requiring strict discipline within religious orders and placing monasteries under the jurisdiction of the bishop, rather than the pope.

– Giving special attention to the education of the clergy, including the goal of establishing a seminary in every diocese. Celibacy was upheld, bishops were responsible to select and mentor men for the priesthood, and those men could not be ordained before age 25.

– Promoting the development of the Roman Missal to standardize the Mass and a catechism containing a concise summary of Catholic beliefs.

Comments Off

2 min read

Church History

Catholic Signers of the Declaration of Independence

Michael R. Heinlein

May 11, 2021 4:11 am May 11, 2021

2 min read

7581 views

Comments Off

2 min read

Were there Catholics who signed the Declaration of Independence? Just one. Charles Carroll is remembered as the lone Catholic to sign the important American document on July 4, 1776. The…

Were there Catholics who signed the Declaration of Independence? Just one.

Charles Carroll is remembered as the lone Catholic to sign the important American document on July 4, 1776. The product of a notable Catholic family from Annapolis, Maryland, Carroll was a cousin to America’s first bishop John Carroll of Baltimore.

Carroll set out for France at age 8 in pursuit of his education. He continued in studies in Europe for the next 20 years and returned home just before he turned 30. Once back in Maryland, Carroll quickly began to lend support to the early American revolutionaries who became more and more dissatisfied with the British government and what they regarded as their oppressive “taxation without representation.” Carroll used his voice to support the calls for separation from the British king.

A key player in various efforts to bring about the revolution, Carroll helped secure Maryland’s support for the Declaration of Independence. He also helped Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Chase in diplomatic efforts to rally support for the revolution from French Canadians.

During the years of the Revolutionary War, Carroll served as a member of the Continental Congress and helped form the Maryland state government. He was elected to the Maryland state senate in 1781 and served for a time in the first as one of Maryland’s first United States Senators.

Carroll advocated for the gradual abolition of slavery, although his record on the issue is complicated by the fact that he did not free his own slaves.

Carroll retired from public office in 1800 and was the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence when he died in Baltimore at 95 in 1832. A statue depicting him is one of two representing Maryland in the National Statuary Hall collection at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.

Comments Off

7 min read

Church History

What is an Ecumenical Council?

Brother John M. Samaha

January 18, 2021 7:58 am January 18, 2021

7 min read

12000 views

Comments Off

7 min read

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) still looms large in the awareness of most Catholics today. But how many Catholics are aware that we’re currently in the midst of the 450th…

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) still looms large in the awareness of most Catholics today. But how many Catholics are aware that we’re currently in the midst of the 450th anniversary of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), another Church council of great historical significance? And how many Catholics know much at all about the other 19 general councils of the Catholic Church?

Church historians remind us that tracing the developments of the general councils is an outstanding way to survey 2,000 years of Christian history. While the general councils have not treated every aspect of theology and spirituality, they have addressed the major issues of their times. For this reason scholars recognize these meetings as an essential element of the ongoing life of the Church.

What actually constitutes a general (or ecumenical) council? (The terms “universal,” “ecumenical” and “general” are ordinarily used interchangeably, though historically these terms have been used in different ways.) A general council is a meeting of worldwide Church leaders convened by the pope, although this was not always the case in early Church history. All bishops are called to participate, but other officials are also invited.

We should note here the important distinction between general councils and councils that are merely local, regional or provincial. Numerous provincial or local councils (or synods) met during the first three centuries of the Church, especially during the third century, to handle matters of doctrine and discipline. These earliest church meetings in North Africa, Rome, Gaul, Asia Minor and Iberia paved the way for the first general council, Nicaea I.

A number of local councils, some attended by popes or their delegates, also met during the Middle Ages.

Today regional synods of bishops continue to meet, sometimes in Rome, and frequently in the bishops’ home countries as national synods or conferences.

We should also note that the separated Eastern Orthodox churches consider only the first seven councils ecumenical. The Catholic Church, however, recognizes 21 councils to be ecumenical, or general, even though the East was missing from the councils of the second millennium.

Why Do Councils Meet?

When we examine the particular reasons why various councils have met over two millennia, we discover a cycle of challenge and response that brings them into session.

In a sense, councils are convoked because they are provoked, prompted by various circumstances in the life of the Church that require attention. Thus councils most often spend their time identifying and condemning heresy, instigating needed reforms, dealing with questions of church authority, and addressing other significant issues as they have emerged in various historical periods.

Since councils come into existence in response to demanding religious and social issues of the day, the Church has no regular schedule for convoking them. They are simply called as needed.

The councils, we might say, are the Church’s “think tanks” for solving problems and plotting the future. Since apostolic times, Christian leaders have used such major meetings to compare notes and solve problems. Often issues are churning for decades or even centuries before they are brought to a council for solution. The council fathers must enunciate guiding principles and procedures and then plot their implementation.

Consequently, a number of activities are necessary for holding a general council. First, the reasons for convoking the council must be identified. Second, its goals must be established. Third, the Church must engage in a period of preparation. Fourth, the assembly itself must take place. And, finally, the council’s decisions must be put into practice.

A Historical Overview

The Church council held in Jerusalem and noted in Scripture (see Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-10) is not listed with those we consider gen-eral or ecumenical. Yet this meeting of the apostles Peter and James, Paul and Barnabas and others is often noted as the first and model council. The general council of Constantinople II (553) explicitly mentioned the importance of the apostles coming together to consult and to make a decision.

The “Council of Jerusalem,” as it came to be called, probably met in A.D. 49 or 50 to address the question that arose a handful of years after Jesus’ death and resurrection: Must one be a Jew in order to be a Christian? The issue boiled down to whether men needed to be circumcised and whether all were bound by the Jewish dietary laws.

The first general council was the First Council of Nicaea, which was summoned by the Emperor Constantine in 325. Its main purpose was to deal with the Arian heresy, which erroneously taught that Jesus Christ was not fully God.

In the Church’s first millennium, the general councils met largely to formulate doctrinal statements to correct other heretical teachings. The councils of the Middle Ages and Reformation dealt primarily with reforming church divergences and clarifying certain doctrines. In the modern period the two Vatican councils were gathered for dissimilar reasons: the first to define papal infallibility, the second to renew the Church in line with contemporary developments.

Some councils completed the unfinished business of their predecessors. For example, the first eight councils, from Nicaea (325) to Constantinople IV (869-870), met in somewhat rapid succession because they were refining creedal statements. In their deliberations they hammered out the profoundly interrelated dogmas of the Church concerning the Blessed Trinity and the Person of Christ.

Several councils followed soon after another to address persisting problems. The first four Lateran councils met successively in less than a century (1123, 1139, 1179, 1215) to address questions of Church reform. In later situations councils finished the work that earlier meetings could not because of difficult circumstances.

A Wide Variety

The time between councils, their duration and their attendance reveal a wide variance. Counting 21 general councils might lead us to think that they were called about one each century. But in reality general councils have met infrequently, often in clusters. And there were long periods of time — sometimes several centuries — that experienced no councils at all.

General councils varied also in duration. Lateran II sat only a week, while Constance (1414-1418) met for three and a half years of steady activity.

But length of time is no indicator of importance or achievement. Lateran IV gathered for only 20 days, yet was the most impressive of the medieval councils. Lateran V met for five years, 1512-1517, but accomplished little.

Concerning participation, as few as a dozen members were present during a low point at Constantinople IV, and only 17 during one session of Trent in 1551-1552. In striking contrast, 2,540 packed St. Peter’s Basilica for the first session of Vatican II in 1962.

Despite difficulties in travel and communication during the ancient and medieval eras, about 600 took part in Chalcedon (451), more than 400 at Lateran IV and nearly 900 at Constance.

Even though each general council has exhibited distinctive characteristics, a common thread runs through all. Each council rose to the occasion and responded to the urgent needs of its day.

To recall the enduring value of what these solemn assemblies have accomplished for the Church throughout the ages, we need only read the words that for centuries have appeared at the beginning of each council document:

“For everlasting memory.”

Comments Off

7 min read

Church History

Father Pierre-Jean De Smet

D.D. Emmons

October 30, 2019 7:40 am October 30, 2019

7 min read

5510 views

Comments Off

7 min read

If you lived in the United States during the 19th century and asked anyone, other than a Native American, to name the most famous person in the American West, the…

If you lived in the United States during the 19th century and asked anyone, other than a Native American, to name the most famous person in the American West, the answer might be Buffalo Bill, Kit Carson or explorers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark.

But if you asked a Native American the same question, the response would likely be the “black robe” Father Pierre-Jean De Smet. Perhaps no individual in the 19th century had more impact on Native Americans than this Catholic missionary.

Born in 1801, Pierre-Jean De Smet began seminary training as a teenager in his native Belgium. Excited by the possibility of being a Catholic missionary in the New World, he immigrated to the United States at the age of 20 and entered the Jesuit Novitiate at White Marsh, Md. In 1823, he moved to the Jesuit facility in St. Louis, where, four years after arrival, he completed his priestly training and was ordained.

In 1826, Pope Leo XII established the Diocese of St Louis, which exceeded the size of the other nine American dioceses combined; it encompassed everything north of Louisiana and west of central Illinois. Almost all of this new diocese, especially west of the Mississippi River, was made up of remote and undiscovered land. It was along the Missouri River, in the Rocky Mountains and west toward the Pacific Ocean that Father De Smet would spend a lifetime proclaiming the Gospel of Christ to the Indians.

Eleven years after taking his priestly vows, Father De Smet was assigned to assist in the establishment of a Catholic mission, called St. Joseph, at Council Bluffs, Iowa. Here, near present-day Omaha, Neb., more than 2,000 Potawatomi Indians had been relocated from the Upper Midwest. Father De Smet spent two years among these people professing the Word of God and exposing them to Christian precepts. Although success was limited, many of these people did find new dignity, freedom and salvation in Christianity.

However, there was one problem that constantly nagged and hampered Jesuit efforts. The relocation agreement that moved the Indians to Council Bluffs stipulated that the U.S. government would monetarily compensate the Indians. White traders and merchants seemed to know of this stipulation and were quick to exploit the Indians, introducing them to the vices of the white man, including alcohol. Father De Smet and his colleagues struggled continuously to keep alcohol out of the missionary encampments, even protesting to the highest levels of government, but with little success.

In that era, the enemy of the Potawatomi was the aggressive and much larger Sioux tribe. These two tribes had frequently engaged in warfare, mostly to the Sioux’s advantage. In 1839, Father De Smet took it upon himself to end the violence. He made the trip from Council Bluffs to the Sioux encampment in the eastern Rocky Mountains, some 12 days of travel up the Missouri River. Alone and unarmed, he walked into the Sioux camp. As he found throughout all his missionary efforts, he was treated respectfully and provided great hospitality. The Indians listened to what this black robe had to say and agreed to make peace with the Potawatomi.

Father De Smet was graced with a God-given special charism that allowed him to relate and minister to Native Americans. He never offended them, never lied, never took advantage or mistreated them. In fact, he would, on numerous occasions, zealously defend their rights before presidents and congressional leaders alike. He was their benefactor at a time when many other whites regarded them as little more than savages. In the most unsanitary, foreign and remote conditions he accepted whatever charitable gifts they offered. A smelly buffalo robe was graciously accepted, or food served on a filthy plate was eagerly consumed; he found ways to fit in with people he grew to love and admire.

In 1840, after two years at Council Bluffs, Father De Smet was assigned to minister to the Flathead (or Salish) Indians, located in what is now Montana. During the several years prior to Father De Smet’s assignment, the Flatheads had made repeated trips to St. Louis seeking a black robe to come live with them and teach them about Jesus. In the spring of 1840, Father De Smet was directed to proceed to the Flathead encampment near present-day Missoula, Mont., and establish what became known as St. Mary’s Mission.

Missionary Challenges

Father De Smet, along with other Jesuits, would establish at least seven missions in the Rocky Mountains, as well as numerous smaller locations largely using the methods of their founder, St. Ignatius. This was never an easy task as the effort was plagued with danger. Just getting to the Indians took days, weeks or even months. Travel was primarily by riverboat, and those river journeys were filled with potential accidents: sand bars, tree stumps, snags, low water and unchartered shore lines. Disease, terrible weather, including tornadoes and snowstorms, forests and thickets also had to be braved. And always there was the unknown reception by the Indians, which never seemed to slow Father De Smet.

Additional aggravation came from the U.S. government, which was forever trying to force the Indians farther and farther west, to confine nomadic people to the reservation. The government also insisted on parceling up the Indians among different religious missionary groups, clearly favoring the Protestants. Perhaps the biggest detriment to all the missionaries was the idea that the noble, proud Indians would adapt to the white man’s culture — that is, they would not only be Christianized but act, dress and conform to a white man’s world. That last challenge was never fully realized.

The Jesuits would quickly discover that the harvest was plentiful but laborers were few. There was an ongoing need for funding and more black robes if their missionary effort was to succeed.

Father De Smet was up to the challenge. He raised money by selling his writings that described the Indians and the geography of the West. He went to Europe repeatedly and not only obtained funding, but convinced more Jesuits to migrate to his missions in the United States. He also petitioned U.S. Congress to support the Jesuit missionary efforts.

During his 72 years of life Father De Smet would come to know and associate with popes, Catholic superiors, presidents, members of congress, Indians from dozens of tribes and his fellow Jesuit missionaries. He would use them all for the greater glory of God.

Peace Mediator

On seven occasions over a 20-year period, Father De Smet was solicited by the U.S. government to intercede between warring Indian tribes and between conflicts of Indian tribes and the United States. One Indian tribe not willing to accept containment on a reservation, not willing to accept the white man’s infringement into their way of life, was the Sioux.

In 1862, they started a war against the United States. The army struggled to handle the situation, and once again the government asked Father De Smet to find a way to intercede and end the warring. The Jesuit, by now 67 years old, took on the assignment to stop the bloodshed and save the Indians from eventual extermination. From St. Louis, Father De Smet traveled 33 days by boat up the Missouri and then trekked another 16 days over land into south central North Dakota looking for the chief of the Sioux, Sitting Bull.

In April 1868, armed with his crucifix and black robe, he entered the Sioux camp and after a few days convinced the famous chief to send representatives to meet with government officials at Fort Rice, N.D. At face value this was a remarkable achievement, because there is little evidence that the two men had ever met. It was Father De Smet’s reputation and the Holy Spirit at work. At the conclusion of the Fort Rice conference, Father De Smet returned to St. Louis where he died on May 23, 1873, Ascension Thursday, from kidney disease.

Comments Off

8 min read

Church History

Why is Sacrosanctum Concilium Important?

Msgr. C. Eugene Morris

September 26, 2019 7:30 am September 26, 2019

8 min read

11413 views

Comments Off

8 min read

These celebrations have provided an opportunity for the Church to properly assess the achievements of the council as well as to discuss areas in which the council may have fallen…

These celebrations have provided an opportunity for the Church to properly assess the achievements of the council as well as to discuss areas in which the council may have fallen short. In addition to articulating both the successes and failures of Vatican II, these celebrations have provided the framework by which to discuss the impact of the council on the life of Holy Mother Church as well as positing what impact the council may have on the future of the Church.

In addition to these celebrations, in his Christmas address of 2005, then Pope Benedict XVI provided a significant hermeneutic (or lens) through which to view the work of the Second Vatican Council. He spoke about the hermeneutic of continuity between the work of the council and the life of the Church before and after the council. The “hermeneutic of reform,” of renewal, sees “the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.”

And then he noted that certain sectors of culture and society sought to separate Vatican II from the history of the Church and promoted a hermeneutic of discontinuity focused on the spirit of the council, not the truths of the documents themselves: “The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts…. In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.”

This gap between the texts themselves and the allusive spirit of the interpreter created an opportunity to respond to every whim in the life of the Church.

The framework provided by both Pope Benedict and the Church’s historical celebrations creates the context for an overview of the first document promulgated by the council fathers, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It can be rightly argued that this document more than others suffered under the hermeneutic of discontinuity presented to the world in the context of the spirit of the document opposed to what the document actually outlined and promulgated. Despite the confusion sometimes created by this misreading of the document, Sacrosanctum Concilium remains integral to the Church’s organic development of the liturgy.

The council fathers wisely began the deliberations of Vatican II with the sacred liturgy precisely because of its significance in the life of the Church. The liturgy is “the outstanding means whereby the faithful may express in their lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, No. 2).

After articulating the nature of the liturgy, which is to build up and strengthen the body of Christ, the document prepares to articulate principles whereby the liturgy may be renewed chiefly so that the liturgy may be that source which imparts “an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful” (No. 1). Before providing concrete principles by which this renewal should be governed, the council fathers exhorted a respect for and adherence and obedience to the tradition of the Church.

Jesus’ Priestly Office

The principles used to assist the Church in liturgical renewal involve, first, an understanding of the nature of the sacred liturgy. At the heart of what the Church celebrates in the sacred liturgy is a continuation of the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ and an expression of His mission to bring about salvation and reconciliation for the whole world.

The Church’s perennial teaching is that the redemptive work of Christ continues in the life of His spouse, the Church, who cooperates concretely in the mission of the Savior through sacramental life. The council states: “Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, ‘the same now offering, through the ministry of the priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,’ but especially under the Eucharistic species” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, No. 7).

The council fathers are able to define the liturgy as “an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ” (No. 7). Through His priestly office Christ is able to sanctify men who are in turn able to fittingly adore God. The liturgy as an action of adoration and sanctification allow men to experience here on earth a foretaste of the glories of heaven and consequently requires from the faithful knowledge and spiritual understanding of what is happening when they are present at the sacred liturgy.

Renewal

Having established foundational principles for the renewal of the sacred liturgy, the document articulates norms for its renewal based on more general aspects of the nature of the liturgy: the communal nature of the liturgy, catechetical and pastoral aspects of the liturgy.

The document concludes the articulation of norms by mapping out the adaptation of the liturgy to the cultural realities in which it would be celebrated. The remaining sections of the document are given over to a discussion of each of the seven sacraments and sacramental realities beginning with the most holy Eucharist. Here the council fathers offer a re-articulation of traditional Catholic theology regarding each of the sacraments and applying the principles set forth at the beginning of the document.

After addressing each of the seven sacraments, the document addresses the importance of sacred art and furnishings. So, too, the council fathers give attention to the liturgical year, the Divine Office and sacred music.

The significance of Sacrosanctum Concilium comes not only from the comprehensive discussion of the whole of the liturgical life but also from the various misunderstandings about the sacred liturgy that developed as a result of a misreading of the document.

Chief among these misunderstandings regards the “full, conscious, and active participation” of all the faithful. This has been understood more often than not as an exhortation to involve more lay faithful in the work of the liturgy when the document makes no specific reference to how this might be implemented.

Furthermore, having already articulated the importance of tradition in rooting and guiding the renewal of the sacred liturgy, this particular phrase, having already appeared in magisterial documents, involves an interior preparation and awareness and has very little to do with exterior functions.

The document speaks eloquently about the importance of the ongoing use of and formation in the Latin language (see No. 36). While allowing the use of the vernacular in the celebration of the sacred liturgy, there is a clear exhortation for the preservation of the use of Latin in the liturgy.

Finally, while it has become normative to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass facing the congregation, nowhere in the documents was it suggested or mandated that the Church abandon the ancient practice of celebrating holy Mass ad orientem — that is, facing the east.

Clear Directions

While the spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium has been trumpeted to allow a variety of abuses to sacred celebrations, the document itself has provided the Church with clear directions to better assist all the faithful in fruitful celebrations of the sacred mysteries.

The exhortation for better knowledge of the rites and rituals of the faithful has provided the impetus for many in the post-conciliar period to strive for greater knowledge about the rituals so that they might more deeply penetrate the mysteries celebrated therein. So, too, the exposure to more sacred Scripture has brought the richness of biblical language more comprehensively into the liturgy.

As the Church now moves beyond these historical celebrations and reflections, she is presented with an opportunity to return to the actual content of the document itself and to authentically execute the desire of the council fathers for a deeper appreciation of the Church’s liturgical life. With the pontificates of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, who has publically committed himself and the Church to the liturgical insights and direction of his predecessor, the Church will be able to more authentically engage the dynamics of liturgical renewal articulated by the council.

The understanding of the council fathers that the celebration of the Church’s liturgical life was the source and summit of all her activities is still very much operative today as it was at its promulgation.

What Sacrosanctum Concilium provides, within the framework of restored tradition and sound doctrine, is the opportunity to assist the faithful in experiencing more deeply and richly the incarnate wisdom and love of God.

Msgr. C. Eugene Morris, a priest of the St. Louis archdiocese.

Comments Off