In announcing that vernacular
languages were to be allowed into the Latin Liturgy of the Roman Catholic
Church on the first Sunday of Lent, 7 March 1965, Pope Paul VI used these
words. “[This is] a memorable Sunday in the spiritual history of the
Church … for the vernacular has officially taken its place within
liturgical worship. The Church has sacrificed its native tongue, Latin, a
language that is sacred, measured, beautiful, richly expressive, and graceful.
The Church has made the sacrifice of an ago-old tradition and above all of
unity in language among diverse peoples to bow to a higher universality, an
outreach to all peoples.”
A short time later, in a
general audience on 17 March 1965, after some people had publicly criticised
the above announcement, Pope Paul VI had this to say: “Those remarks
… show a lack of understanding about religious rites … They do not
indicate a true devotion or a genuine perception of the import of the Mass.
Rather they betray certain spiritual laziness, the refusal to make the personal
effort toward understanding and participation… Before, it was enough to
assist; now, it is necessary to take part. Before, being there was enough; now,
attention and activity are required. Before, everyone could doze or perhaps
even chatter; now, all must listen and pray… The assembly becomes alive
and active; taking part means allowing the soul to become attentive, to enter
into the dialogue, to sing, to act.”
Quoted in Worship, May
2003, page 254
The kind of active
participation so vividly described by Pope Paul VI needs to include
participation in sharing reflections after the readings. This kind of sharing
is required to engage the thinking processes in active participation. Without
this kind of active participation it is too easy to slip into a monotonous
routine of oftentimes superficial participation even when the vernacular
language is used. After forty years we have discovered that the vernacular
language, with virtually the old routine of ritual, does not solve the problems
of participation in the liturgy. Perhaps this is the main reason why the
changes in the liturgy following the introduction of the vernacular have not
produced the desired and initially expected results.
In this respect lay led Liturgies
with relatively small congregations have an advantage: it is easier to
introduce a sharing of reflections, open to the whole congregation, after the
readings.
When a
community lacks a priest, attempts are rightly made somehow to remedy the
situation so that it can continue its Sunday celebrations, and those religious
and laity who lead their brothers and sisters in prayer exercise in a
praiseworthy way the common priesthood of all the faithful based on the grace
of Baptism. But such solutions must be considered merely temporary, while the
community awaits a priest.
Pope
John Paul II in Ecclesia de
Eucharistia 32
(Communities will probably have to wait until the church regulations governing who can be ordained are changed.)