Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Massey University Library New Zealand & Pacific Collection New Life, Old Churchskins. The initial implementation of Pastoral Liturgy in New Zealand, 1963 to 1970. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy in History. Joseph Grayland Massey University December 1996 - Abstract In the period between 1963 and 1970 the Catholic Church's liturgy change dramatically. The event Catholics know as the Vatican 11, produced the impetus for this substantial renewal of the Church and its liturgy, which was then implemented throughout the wortd. The new liturgical practice was known as Pastoral Liturgy. In New Zealand the liturgical reforms were directed by the bishops and implemented by them according to the only model of Church leadership they knew, a top-down model. In parishes too this model was often followed, resulting in confusion for both Laity and Clergy. Pastoral Liturgy's undertying theology challenged the methods of Episcopal authority, the role of the priest and the role of the Laity, as much as it changed ritual worship patterns. This study necessarily begins with the Liturgical Movement in Europe and the Document Sacrosanctum Concilium. This contextualises the liturgical changes in New Zealand in their wider context and helps the reader to see these changes as part of a bigger movement within the Church. The role of the Episcopal Conference and the activities of the St Paul's group are compared to give an illustration of the different levels of interest in liturgical renewal within the New Zealand Church. The varied response of the Catholic people to the renewal and the common memory of having not been consulted during the period is evaluated in light of the modern needs in the Church. Acknowledgment. Writing this thesis has been possible because of the support, encouragement and practical assistance of many people, both family and friends. Among those who have made it possible are the Pastoral Team of St Patrick's Parish, Palmerston North. To Fr. Kevin Neal, Anne-Marie O'Connor and Sr. Michelle O'Meara, my gratitude for your support and especially to Rosemary Wyse who helped me focus my thoughts and fix up my grammar, my heartfelt thanks. To Dr. Peter Lineham who supervised this project thank you for your direction and help in formulating the material I found into a thesis. I would also like to acknowledge the generosity of those who agreed to be interviewed and took the risk of entrusting their memories to my writing. In having sought to honour their trust throughout the work, I hope that the final product even if not perhaps mirroring their individual opinions, will stand on its own merits The archivists of the diocese of Auckland, Christchurch and the Archdiocese of Wellington have also helped me by opening their collections to me and offering practical help as I searched through the material in their collections. To Fr. Bruce Bolland and his staff in Auckland, Sr. Mary de Porres in Wellington and Fr. Kevin Clark of Christchurch, I wish to express my thanks. Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgments Abbreviations 1 Glossary 2 Timeline 4 Preamble 8 Introduction 9 Chapter One. Pastoral Liturgy. 14 Chapter Two. Who is driving the reforms? 24 Chapter Three. From one day to the next 44 Chapter Four. Confusion, Response and Reaction 66 Chapter Five. A change in conflict with culture? 82 Conclusion 94 Appendix 1: Liturgical Instruction, 1964. 101 Appendix 2: Statistics, Archdiocese of Wellington. 111 Appendix 3: Edwards Wanganui survey. 112 Bibliography. 114 Abbreviations: ACA Auckland Catholic Archive WCA Wellington Catholic Archive CAC Christchurch Catholic Archive Del. Delargy Papers. Lis Liston Papers. Lit '54 Liturgy Notes and Letters 1954-1978. Wellington Archdiocese. GRIM General Instruction to the Roman Missal SC Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy ICEL International Committee for English in the Liturgy CPC Catholic Publications Centre, Auckland. AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Glossary: Alleluia or Tract It has been replaced by the responsory psalm. Canon See Eucharistic Prayer Collect the opening prayer of the Mass. Concilium The Vatican organisation responsible for producing and publishing the new ritual texts which was set up after the conclusion of the Council. Concelebration the participation of more than one ordained minister in a liturgical celebration. Dialogue Mass a pre-Vatican II low Mass in which the congregation responded vocally to the presider, taking the parts that normally were recited quiefly by the altar servers. Episcopal Conference the periodic assembly of bishops of a particular region or country for the purpose of addressing pastoral issues. Eucharistic Prayer Central prayer of Thanksgiving in the Mass, containing the Institution Narrative commonly referred to as the consecration. Eucharistic Minister Communion. A lay minister who assists with the distribution of Gradual the psalm verse sung between the first reading and the Alleluia. Introit entrance prayer consisting of a short antiphon, psalm verse and doxology. Last Gospel John 1: 1-14 read at the conclusion of the Tredentine Mass. 2 Latin Rite the popular but inaccurate name for all the religious usage's of the Church in the Roman Catholic West. Lector/Reader a lay person who reads from the scriptures at Mass. Ordinary parts of the Mass which do not change, though the sung compositions may vary: the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Lamb of God. Ordinaries supply a consistent structure that is filled out by the liturgical proper. Proper the variable parts of the Mass which reflect the season or feast the such as the: entrance antiphon, opening prayer, chant after the first reading, the preface, prayer over the gifts, Communion antiphon and post-Communion prayer. Post-Conciliar the church structure or liturgy after the, or as a result of the Second Vatican Council. Pre-Conciliar the church structure or liturgy before the reform of the Second Vatican Council. Rite any repetitive ceremonial with fixed rules comprising all the liturgical rites and usage's of a particular tradition of worship. Rubicism a slavish fidelity to rules or rubrics of liturgical celebration. 3 Timeline: 4 December 1963: Sacrosanctum concilium The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was published. 25 January 1964: Sacram liturgiam, Motu Proprio on the Sacred Liturgy. April 1964: Permission from Rome to use Layman's Missal as a basic Text 16 May 1964: Decreta ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia in Nova Zelandia given in Rome allowing English in some parts of the Mass, scripture readings and rituals of sacraments and sacramentals 10 July 1964: Letter from McKeefry to the Bishops, enclosing directives for Priests throughout the country and explaining the changes. Copies were also sent to the Tablet and Zealandia. 4 August 1964: Statement of the Conference of the Marist and Mill Hill priests requesting Maori in the Mass. Sunday 16 August 1964: Implementation in New Zealand of Decree De Sacra Liturgia. 26 September 1964: lnteroecumenici 'The Instruction on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy'. 14 November 1964: Probatum seu confirmatum Ordrinarium Missae et Ritus Matrimonii lingua "maori", approving the Maori marriage ritual. 19 Nov. 1964: McKeefry's letter to the Concilium seeking further use of the vernacular in Mass and in the Ordination and Consecrations rites, as approved for Australia. He sought approval to use the Grail psalter, Tantum Ergo in English, the 4 New Testament in Maori and copies of Libel/um Miss ale in accordance with Res Secretarias N12 for concelebration. 24th November 1964: Permission given to use the translation requested by McKeefry on the 19th of November 1964. 2 March 1965: McKeefry to bishops advising of more changes to come in the Mass. 1 st June 1965: Letter to priests allowing the use of the layman's Missal as the basic text 7 March 1965: Implementation of Inter oecumenici, The Instruction on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. 27 April 1965: Use of the vernacular in the Preface permitted by Rome. Published in the Tablet 16 June 1965. 30 May 1965: Lay readers used in Dunedin parishes for the first time. 20 October 1965: Photo spread in the Tablet of a Mass in Christchurch at the opening of Charity Week with the priest facing the people. p35. 27 February 1966: Bishops' Pastoral Letter for First Sunday of Lent 1966 sent to priests. 3 November 1966 to 7 December 1967: Weekly articles in Zealandia by Delargy which refer to liturgy, change and the difficulties being experienced. 22 • 29 January 1967: Christian Life Week in Auckland. 4 May 1967: Tres abhinc annos, The Second Instruction on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. 5 19 May 1967: Letter from Sneddon to Bishops telling them Tres abinc annos will come into effect on June 29 1967. 9 June 1967: Approval for use of English in the Ordination rite in Consilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia. 29 June 1967: Implementation of Tres abinc annos. 30 July 1967: Statement by Bishops that application has been made for the Canon of the Mass in English.' 29 October 1967: Memo to the bishops from Bishop Kavanagh regarding the preparation of booklets for the Canon of the Mass in English. 23 January 1968: lnstantibus pluribus, The Instruction on the Vernacular with norms for the translations of the Graduale simplex received from Rome. 23 May 1968: Prece eucharistica, promulgating three new Eucharistic Prayers and eight prefaces. July 1968: Humanae Vitae was published. 8 October 1968: Sneddon to O'Dea, Tablet editor saying there will be no implementation of the vernacular Canon until after January 1969. 1 December 1968: The first Sunday of Advent and the introduction of CPC Mass leaflet February 1969: CPC editions of Holy week for the Choir and Holy Week for the People published. 3 April 1969: Missale Romanum, Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Missal. 6 6 April 1969: Ordine Missae, promulgating the new Order of Mass 25 May 1969: Introduction of the Lectionary for Mass. 8 June 1969: Introduction of new Prefaces and Eucharistic Prayers October 1969: Report by Rev. Barry Edwards on the liturgy questionnaire in Wanganui. 26 March 1970: The first editio typica of the Missale Romanum, promulgated. with the 'General Instruction of the Roman Missal'. 5 September 1970: Liturgiae lnstaurationes, The Third Instruction on the Correct Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was published. October 1970: Broadcast Mass from Cathedral in Auckland. Celebrant: David Blake; Preacher: Brian Arahill: Music: Douglas Mews. 4 November 1970: Telecast of the New Mass from Holy Cross Chapel, Mosgiel. 18 November 1970: Letter from Snedden to Bishops regarding the approval of the ICEL Holy Week texts. 29 November 1970 1st Sunday of Advent Implementation of the first editio typica of the Missale Romanum, the New Mass. The main changes were the options for the entrance rite, a psalm between the readings, the simplification of the Offertory rite and the introduction of the sign of peace in the communion rite and the options in the concluding rite. 7 Preamble: Five years ago, during a meeting at the Pastoral Centre in Palmerston North, I was sitting with a group of Catholic women having a coffee break. Our discussion ranged over many things but came to ground on the issue of the Church's liturgy in the 1990's. All these women had lived through the changes in the 1960s, as the Church entered a new era. They remembered the Church as a law-bound reality, rigid and inflexible, demanding total adherence to its maxims and they remembered the struggle to be faithful to the Church which would never change. When the unchanging Church changed, so too did many commonly held practices, and some members experienced a sense of betrayal. What they had held holy and sacred was now unimportant or even wrong. At the end of our conversation one of the women said 'Someone needs to admit that the Church changed without telling us why it was happening. It all changed over night'. That was the beginning of this thesis. The task then was to find out if the women were right or if their memory mirrored a later response to the period of change. Now several other questions have arisen seeking answers. How were Catholics prepared for the implementation of Pastoral Liturgy and what if anything inhibited that preparation? What process of implementation was employed by the Bishops' during this time? Were the clergy and laity formed in the new Pastoral Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, or merely informed about it? Does the need for process, consultation and informed debate reflect more the Church of the 1990's than it does the Church of the 1960's? It is with these questions in mind that I set out on this thesis. 8 Introduction. For the New Zealand Catholic Church of the 1960's the initial implementation of the vernacular Mass was a crucial moment but worship in vernacular languages, was not in itself the goal of the reforms. The goal was the implementation of Pastoral Liturgy, which required vernacular languages, to express the new vision which the Church had accepted. Pastoral Liturgy, enfleshed on a Sunday by Sunday basis, renewed the way Catholics related to the world around them and to each other. The greatest change brought by the Second Vatican Council was not just in the liturgy, or in the style of Religious Life for example, but in the way Catholics in worship, living and theology perceived themselves. It is remembered as a change which took many Catholics by surprise. Generally the Catholic culture in New Zealand has been characterised by a narrow exclusive network of social, educational and political interaction based on religious duty and identification. There is however, more evidence to suggest that New Zealand Catholics were more a part of the social fabric, than they were distinct from it. The rising number of mixed marriages [marriages between a Catholic and a person of another religion or no religion], within the Catholic Church during the 1950s and 1960s is evidence that Catholics were not an isolated group within New Zealand society, but were continually influenced by opinion and belief outside the Church itself.1 By the 1960's New Zealand Catholics were not a recognisable ghetto class. At the beginning of this century Catholics formed the majority of the poorer groups, but by the 1950s and early 1960s Catholics were represented at all levels of New Zealand society. Catholics derived their sense of identity from many different sources both ecclesiastical and secular. Religious attitudes tended to reflect a very narrow Irish Catholicism with its inherent clericalism and piety. For example, Catholics in New Zealand were not allowed to attend other Christian Churches without the express permission of the local Bishop or Parish Priest. It was not uncommon that parents of children attending state schools instead of convent schools, were threatened with excommunication by some parish priests. Also, by the 1960s New Zealand Catholicism reflected local cultural trends such as nominal Christianity, 1Archdiocese of Wellington, Marriage Statistics, 1956- 1979, Vicariate for Marriages. see also, Diocese of Auckland Marriage Statistics, 1950-1980. ACA. 9 uninterest in religion and growing materialism as they too enjoyed a growing national prosperity. But in the Mass' rituals and obligations, one finds the central difference between the Catholic community and all the other Christian communities. Not the least of which was the moral obligation on all Catholics to attend Mass each Sunday. In the 'Irish Catholic' memory the Mass had been vilified by Protestant reformation rhetoric and had become the symbol of Catholic resistance. While the Mass set the Catholic identity, it did not inhibit New Zealand Catholics from taking part in the social and political life of the nation. Nor did the prohibitions of the Church inhibit a significant number of Catholics from choosing not to attend Mass. However, given its central role in the Catholic identity, the changes in the Mass are the most important of all change in the Church, because the Mass is where the majority of Catholics directly experienced the change in the Church's self-understanding and in their own religious identity. The period 1963 to the end of 1970 is a short but important period, which begins with the publication on 4 December 1963 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, that set the agenda for change. The period ends with the implementation in New Zealand of the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, (3 April 1969] in its final version on the First Sunday of Advent, 29 November 1970. It had taken over eighteen months for the original instruction to be published as Missale Romanum, in its editio typica form on 26 March 1970. Missale Romanum completed the revisions and reforms which had appeared in the years between 1963 and 1969. It also completed the full implementation of the vernacular in the Roman liturgy and gave the future direction for ongoing development. In this short period of time the Roman Catholic Church's worship moved from the exclusive use of Latin to use nearly 350 different languages, from the priest with his back to the congregation facing the altar, to priest and people facing each other. Critics of the changes called it the 'Protestantisation' of the Roman Liturgy. Luther had won, they said, and Calvin was victorious. Many Anglicans for example, commented that there was very now little difference between their Communion Service [Eucharist] and a Catholic Mass. For some a unique symbol of difference had been lost. 10 It was a momentous change and as such, it is vital to one's understanding of any subsequent changes in the Catholic Church. The style and symbols of Catholic rituals are not arbitrary, but expressive of a particular understanding of God. As such they form within Catholics their religious and faith perspective, which is itself in turn influenced by the culture of the world in which they participate. Religious adherence constitutes an important cultural identity, which does not stand apart from an individuals' social identity. Catholicism here, like New Zealand pakeha culture in general, looked to Europe for identity and leadership. The changes in the Church during the 1960s mirrored, in many ways, those in the New Zealand culture. The liturgical changes became the flashpoint where the ideal of theology met the reality of culture, head on. As a historical work, this thesis will focus on one major question: was the Catholic Church in New Zealand prepared for such a momentous change and once underway how did the Church prepare for and implement the new reforms? The task of the liturgical historian is not only to chronicle the movement and changes of liturgical actions through time, but to offer an understanding of the times and the attitudes which formed the particular practices and how these reflect both the people who formed them and their culture. A particular memory which is central to this work concerns the laity not having being prepared for the changes and that the resulting confusion and difficulties of the 1970s, 80s and 90s is the result of the piecemeal implementation of the new Mass. While there are many examples of articles in the two Catholic publications of the day explaining the new liturgy, there was an inhibiting factor which prevented the laity from taking a full and active part in the reforms. Throughout this thesis this inhibiting factor will be discussed from various sides, because it is not a single concrete factor, but rather a multiplicity of influences acting upon the Church at all levels. These indicate a breakdown between the nature of Pastoral Liturgy and the new model of leadership it demanded and the attempt to implement renewal using old methods of change and authority, which the bishops, clergy and laity were accustomed to. In discussing the method of change it is important to remember the options available to Catholics in the 1960s were limited by the hierarchical structure, clericalism and the 11 absence of laity from the decision making forums of the Church, at both diocesan and International levels. This factor is considered throughout the thesis. Chapter one places liturgical renewal in its wider church context. The Second Vatican Council Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, sits within the context of the nineteenth and twentieth century's Liturgical Movement. This context is important because it shows that Catholic worship world-wide was in a process of change. It allows us to see that the reforms of the Vatican Council were part of an ongoing development, which gave the reforms a credibility, supported by theological scholarship. Many New Zealand Catholics were unaware of this context Chapter two asks whether the New Zealand Church was ready for such a change and finds that it was not It was not a Church on the verge of change, but rather a Church surprised that anything had to change, though there are always instances to the contrary. For instance, the story and efforts in liturgical development by the St Paul's group at the National Seminary and its later influence on liturgical developments in the 1960s. Also discussed is the place of the bishops, both as an Episcopal Conference and as individuals whose personalities impacted on the implementation of the of the post-Conciliar liturgy. Chapter three looks at the reforms and describes how they occurred, following generally on the directives of the Roman Consilium. This chapter details the people who were central in this process, showing the importance of priests to the work of renewal and the uncharacteristic lack of clear direction to them from the hierarchy. Chapter four measures the reaction to the changes, both prior to and after 1970. The negative reaction will be shown to have begun in earnest after 1970, rather than before and this reaction reflects the change in the people as that of the general period. This chapter also discusses the question of lay formation and the factors contributing to or inhibiting this formation. Chapter five reflects on the 1960s New Zealand society in general and its relevance to contemporary church culture. The liturgical changes revealed divisions within the Catholic community which owed more to secular individualism than to faith practice. 12 One who is a Catholic, and a priest cannot reflect impassively on the changes in the Church. Though one born during these changes can to some extent regard them as historically interesting they are also essentially formative. I view the changes from the uncomfortable of position being in the transition. The dust of the liturgical renewal has not yet settled and the need to understand the changes is still obvious. Though I did not have to change my religious ritual from before 1964 to after, or adjust to the changes between 1964 and 1970, I have experienced unrest of this period. I have no hankering after the past nor any particular desire to dismiss it as irrelevant rather my interest is in finding out why the New Zealand Church is still dealing with issues which should have been addressed thirty years ago. To achieve the objective of the thesis it has been necessary to use archival material, as well as material from several interviews conducted with various Church-people, lay and cleric. These particular people were identified by their Church involvement at an official level during this time, or their subsequent commentaries on the nature of the New Zealand Catholic Church. The archival material comes from the Diocesan Archives of Wellington, Auckland and Christchurch.2 This, together with material from the New Zealand Tablet, Zealandia, contemporary commentaries and the most recent liturgical publications form the basis of the research. This thesis is not the first time the issue of liturgical change has been addressed and it will not be the last The issues surrounding liturgical changes are bigger than any one discipline, and go too deep into the Catholic psyche to be understood simplistically. Dealing with a complex network of interrelationships between theology, worship, New Zealand culture and change makes any cause and effect analysis extremely problematic. It is this which makes the historical study of liturgy worthwhile and fascinating. The agenda of renewal over a significant period of New Zealand Catholic Church History, highlights the question: Was the Church trying to breathe new life into old churchskins? 2Regrettably I received no response from the Dunedin Diocesan Archivist. 13 Chapter One: Pastoral Liturgy. Catholic belief is expressed in liturgical ritual actions and expressive of a shared understanding of God. To look at the liturgy of the Church is not an arbitrary choice, but rather a way to consider who Catholics are. Prior to the 1960s, the word Liturgy was not a familiar one in Catholic circles. Even now it is a relatively new concept which the liturgical movement of the nineteenth century popularised. The Latin adjective liturgicus and noun liturgia were first used to describe the Byzantine practice of worship as it pertained to Eucharistic worship. A much later development saw the word liturgy referring to the entire ritual worship of the Western or Roman Church. 3 Most authors try to define the word liturgy according to its nature and essential character, which is problematic because liturgy is a living reality. People do liturgy, that is to say, people give worship to God according to common ritual patterns, which use symbols of shared meaning. Here already a definition emerges, which grapples with a reality which is many sided, able only to be understood in the doing. Liturgy though is not a purely anthropocentric reality. It is not simply to be understood as, 'the outward or visible part of divine worship or ... an ornamental ceremonial'4, it is an action in which the divinity of God is central to its meaning and its effect Liturgy does not only describe human participation, but it also describes and celebrates God's participation in human affairs. In Sacrosanctum Concilium,5 the nature of liturgy and its necessity for the Church's life is explored, indicating the centrality of liturgy to Catholic self-understanding.6 To understand Catholics, one must first of all understand the ritual worship which continually forms them. 3 A.G.Martimort, 'Definitions and Methods', in Principles of the Liturgy (ed) Aime Georges Martimort, (Minnesota, 1987), Vo! 1.. p8. 4Pius XII, Mediator Dei, (Rome. 1947). 5SC., section one of chapter one 6,ibid., No. 7. 'Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy, by means of signs perceptible to the senses human sanctification is signified and brought about in ways proper to each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and his members'. 14 Liturgy understood theologically is the visible element of a supernatural reality. Essentially the liturgy is comprised of the sacraments and is a sacred sign which effects that which it signifies. The distinction between sacramental and non sacramental signs is important in terms of the efficacy of the sacred reality. Liturgy is a twofold dynamic: the earthly community's adoration and petition of God and God's redemption of the human community. The people, empowered by the Spirit of Christ, are themselves being changed by this action. Worship in the Catholic sense is continually active and always in the present tense. The Mass is not the only Catholic liturgical action, all sacramental rituals are liturgical actions, as is the Prayer of the Church. As the primary Catholic action the Mass forms the model for all other liturgy. As an action, the liturgy of the Mass exists only at the time it is being celebrated. It is for this reason that it is often unintelligible to those who attend it, but do not participate or share in the ·common meaning ascribed to the symbols. Sacrosanctum Concilium was approved by the bishops gathered at the Second Vatican Council and promulgated by Pope Paul IV on 4 December 1963. This constitution was the first formal document issued by the Council. As such, it was an indication of the enormous amount of work which had taken place in the preceding decades. Much of the formative work is due to two influences. Firstiy the liturgical movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and secondly, 'Catholic Action' and its rediscovery of the place of the assembly.7 As the liturgy in the west first developed, it relied heavily on the Church in Rome, which used Latin in its liturgical rites. Latin was the language of the city, of its commerce and law as well as its religious ritual. Over time most Western Churches adopted the rituals of Roman worship together with Latin, so that 'by the middle of the fourth century at the latest, the liturgies of the west were being celebrated in Latin 7 A movement in Western European Churches which had a new missionary impulse and was expressed in various movements like. the Young Christian Workers, Christian Family Movement. Catholic Youth Movements, as well as in the liturgical movement. 15 rather than Greek.'8 Some Churches, such as in England, were founded as Papal missions and so automatically used the Roman Rituals. Other churches, such as the Celtic church became subsumed into the Roman Church and began to lose their liturgical uniqueness they adopted Roman rituals. In the period before the fourth century the Mass' ritual was very diverse where improvisation by the priest or bishop in the ritual prayers was the norm. Development of liturgical texts grew between the fourth and eighth centuries, but it is not until the Carolingian period that the Roman Rite 'would become the liturgy of the greater part of the West'9 From the ritual texts, the sacramentaries, one sees that the key distinction between the Roman liturgy and those of the Gallician, Spanish and Eastern rites is the Eucharistic Prayer. The Roman Liturgy had only one Eucharistic Prayer or Canon, while the others had several, though the Roman prayer had variable Prefaces. The place and uniqueness of the Eucharistic Prayer has been important in the reform of the Mass throughout the centuries. The sacramentaries contain many liturgical prayers, but only the briefest of instructions as to how the rituals were to be performed. 10 The influence of the Roman ritual and its gradual acceptance by churches outside of Rome continued, so that when Charlemagne decreed the use of the Roman liturgical books in the Frankish Kingdom 'his actions simply brought to term a movement already under way.' Unifying the empire through the use of one liturgical practice, meant that 'the centre of vitality for the roman Liturgy ... was to be found no longer at Rome but wherever the imperial court of the Carolinians and later Ottonians resided and in the greatest of the Frankish monasteries. '11 In the monasteries of the West during this period, the practice of ordaining many members as priests became common, while the Eastern Churches retained the practice of ordaining a priest only when there was a need for one. The presence of 8P. M. Gy, 'History of the Liturgy in the West to the Council of Trent' in The Church at Prayer, Principles of the Liturgy (ed) A.G. Martimort, (Minnesota, 1987), Vol. l , p.45 . 9ibid., p.47. 10The Leonine . Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries. 11 Gy., p.54. 16 so many priests in one place wanting to celebrate Mass brought about the development of the private Mass, which by 1200 was a regular practice. It necessitated the availability of extra altars and from this developed the practice of building altars against the walls of the churches as a space saving device. While ancient theology had viewed the priest at the altar with the people gathered with him, facing east to the rising sun, their backs to the darkness of the west, this practical necessity developed a theology which explained the priest as one who led the people to God; practical reality led the change in theology. At these Masses the priest did everything, assisted only by a server. The sung parts were spoken or omitted and everything took place at the altar. It was during the eleventh century that for the first time, there appeared the 'complete missals' for saying the Mass and the low Mass became the norm. The language, architecture and theology conspired against the involvement of the people and they became viewers rather than participants. Many different forms of piety grew up and were used by the people as a means of personal involvement because they were so cut off from the action of the Eucharist At the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, the Church attempted to reform the liturgy, by returning to the rites and practices of the Fathers. 12 This decision produced the Roman Missal of 1570, which was promulgated by Pope Pius V. 13 The result was a conviction that 'the way the liturgy was given in the 1570 missal was as close to the pristine tradition of the church as possible ... [but) which at best reflected the tradition of the Roman Curia in the thirteenth century.'14 While the Tridentine reforms achieved some good results, the practice of the private Mass came to be accepted as 'normative for the church.' After the reforms of Trent, there were attempts to develop other liturgies in the western Church, especially in France, but because these were associated with Gallicanism and Jansenism they failed. 15 12General Instruction to the Roman Missal, [GRIM], Introduction No 8. pg. 17. 13 Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, 14 July 1570. 14How Firm a Foundation: Leaders of the Liturgical Mo·1ement, compiled and introduced by Robert L. Tuzik. (Chicago, 1990), p. l. 15ibid. , p.2. 17 There followed three centuries of liturgical stability from 1614-1903 during which the rubrical rigidity of the Tridentine reforms cast the Mass in a concrete mould. Liturgy was seen as an action of the Church which was done according to set and unchanging laws, rather than as a ritual action which expressed the belief of the gathered assembly. In the nineteenth century the liturgical movement was assisted through the efforts of two German theologians, Johnann Adam Mohler (1796-1838)and Matthias Joseph Scheeben (1835-1888). Both these theologians developed the concept of church as a gathering of all the baptised.16 Dom Prosper Gueranger (1805-1875) was the first to use the expression liturgical movement and was the founder of the modern movement. The modern phase of liturgical reform began in 1903 with Pope Pius X. He took the initiative and began a return to the tradition by maintaining that an active participation by the faithful in the holy mysteries was 'the primary and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit'.17 In 1907 he published a new edition of Prefaces and prayers before the Canon, followed in 1909 with a decree on frequent communion, exhorting the people to daily communion. This together with the simplification of the rites constituted a reform which was codified in 1914.18 A Belgian monk, Dom Lambert Beaudin, is almost synonymous with the European liturgical movement of the twentieth century. Beaudin aimed to reach the general Catholic population and create a new awareness of liturgy by encouraging active participation by the laity. To achieve this he published a small missal written in both French and Latin, with which people could follow the Mass. To ensure the education of priests, Beaudin organised annual liturgy conferences and courses at Louvain University as well as publishing the journal Les Questions liturgiques. Under the direction of Fr. Paul Doncoeur a French Jesuit the dialogue Mass was introduced in France after World War I. In Germany the liturgical movement was also gathering momentum under the direction of Professor Romano 16ibid., p.2. 17 Pope Pius X, le so//ecitudini, Vatican. 1903. 18Additiones et variationes in rubricis Missa/is, 1914. 18 Guardini (1885-1968) and Don Odo easel (1886-1948) and in Austria Pius Parsch (1884-1954) popularised the German reform movement Later in America, people such as Virgil Michel and Godfrey Diekmann were at the forefront of the liturgical movement The introduction of bi-lingual missals first in Latin/French, then Latin/German and lastly Latin/English enabled Catholics to follow the Mass. The dialogue Masses gave them the sense of participation, but it was only a shadow of the participation which the Vatican Council's reforms would demand. The liturgical movement in Europe was augmented by the Catholic Social Action Movement. The 'Catholic Action' groups had rediscovered the place of the assembly in worship. They were drawing on the historical research into the liturgy and the ancient Christian traditions of Community. Their goal was to form a new consciousness in Catholic laity based on the baptismal call to evangelise the world. Pope Pius XII, who had wanted to call a Council himself, made his contribution to the liturgical movement with the encyclical letter Mediator Dei (20 November 1947). Even before this publication Pius had established within the Congregation of Rites a commission especially charged with the reform of the liturgy.19 In this document referred to as the Magna Carta of the liturgical movement, Pius made liturgical reform possible. This spurred on liturgical reform, and produced a huge body of scholarship so that when the Second Vatican Council gathered in 1963 the liturgy was the first area to be discussed. Pius's other important writing was Mystici Corpus Christi in which he returned to the Pauline image of the church as the mystical body of Christ an image which Vatican I had rejected. In 1951 Pius restored the Easter Vigil to Holy Saturday night and in 1953 evening Masses were approved, while eucharistic fasting was shortened to three hours. In 1955 the Congregation of Rites simplified the Presidential Prayers, the Creed, Prefaces and the last Gospel. Much of this was a direct result of war time Mass practices and the post-war European experience and again practical realities dictated the change in worship. Pius saw the world changing and knew that the Church too needed to change. He fostered a deep interest in the liturgy because he saw it as a sign of God's caring for his people and of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church.20 19See Martimort Volwne 1., pg. 75. 20Pius XII address to participants at the First International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy, Assisi, 22 May 1956, inActaAposto/icae Sedis, [AAS] 48, (1956), no. 712. 19 Pius' letter, Divina Afflant Spiritu opened up for Catholics a limited access to the scriptures. Though the best way for Catholics to have access to the scriptures was through the use of vernacular texts, Pius did not think that a sweeping change at that stage were wise. Therefore he allowed a limited use of the scriptures in Mass by having them read first in Latin by the Priest and afterwards in the vernacular by a lay­ reader. The Vatican Council followed the lead given by Pius when they produced the Lectionary, in the hope that the treasures of the bible would become more accessible to Catholics. Aidan Kavanagh, OSB attributes great importance to the Pontificate of Pius XII and the effect of his letter Mediator Dei on the development of Pastoral Liturgy. This impetus, he writes, 'affected Catholic worship markedly in the growing use of the vernacular, the practice of the 'dialogue Mass', and most strikingly in the 1951 restoration of the Easter Vigil and the 1955 reform of Holy Week.'21 Pope John XXIII called a Council to 'open the windows of the Church', but as far as liturgical reform is concerned he did very little. The only change he made was to include the name of St Joseph in the Canon. By comparison, the leaders of the liturgical movement in both Europe and the United States had more in mind than simply to 'move furniture and have people sing chants at Mass. They wanted to reform the way people lived as church.'22 Many influences including all the liturgical reforms of the twentieth century are responsible for Sacrosanctum Concilium. This document has continued to be the blueprint for Catholic worship in the years since it was published. It contains within it a vision of Christ and the Church which is expressed in Pastoral Liturgy. 21 Aidan Kavanagh, 'Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Conci/ium' in Modern Catholicism Vatican II and After, (ed) Adrian Hastings (London, 1991), p. 69. 22Tuzik, p3 . 20 The sacred Council has set out to impart an ever-increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more closely to the needs of our age those institutions which are subject to change to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call all mankind into the Church's fold. Accordingly it sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.23 Sacrosanctum Concilium was the first Document of the Second Vatican Council writes Aidan Kavanagh, because its 'pre-conciliar preparation proved far more satisfactory than that of other comparable important texts. By coming first Sacrosanctum Concilium set the atmosphere for subsequent debates and documents.'24 As a document it relied 'on a massive tradition both legislative and scholarly extending back some four centuries and culminating in the movement of Pastoral Liturgy.'25 Pastoral Liturgy rejected the old rubicism and replaced it with a new understanding of worship and Christian action has having an intimate and dynamic link. Pastoral Liturgy in its composition and execution, was intended to reflect more the needs of the age and the desire of the Church to be involved in the world than previously thought necessary. It was to be marked by an ability to change, use and adapt for worship those local customs and practices which were expressive of God. Pastoral activity was to be directed towards liturgical expression as the normative means of expressing Catholic belief. Though the Council pointed out that liturgical expression did 'not exhaust the entire activity of the Church, nevertheless the greatest care must be taken about rightly linking pastoral activity with the liturgy and carrying out a pastoral liturgy not as if it were set apart and existing in isolation but as it is closely joined to other pastoral works.'26 It was the desire for Pastoral Liturgy that highlighted the need for the use of the vernacular languages in worship. In New Zealand the concept Pastoral Liturgy was relatively unknown, and accordingly there is no evidence of debate at that time. 23SC., no: 1. 24Kavanagh, p68, see also Martimort, and Hughes 'Overview of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy', in The Liturgy Documents, A Parish resource, (Chicago, 1991), p.2. 25Kavanagh, p. 68. 26Pope Paul VI. Address to a consistory on carrying out the reform of the liturgy, 23 June 1964: AAS 56 (1964) no 299 in Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts, (Minnesota. 1982), p.90. 21 Sacrosanctum Concilium set the Council's agenda of reforming the Church's self­ understanding through the promotion of the liturgy. It presents the liturgy as the place where the work of salvation is achieved by Christ and continued in the Church. The liturgy is 'the summit towards which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the fount from which all the Church's power flows'.27 Given this premise, liturgy of its very nature calls the faithful to a 'full, conscious and active participation' in its celebration, and 'the reform and promotion of the liturgy ... is the aim to be considered before all else'.28 Sacrosanctum Concilium put liturgical public worship at the forefront of the Catholic Church's contemporary agenda. As the first document of the Council, its weakness is that it reflects the Roman penchant for compromise, evident in its interesting combinations of general principles and pastoral specifics. 29 It includes quite different liturgical practices side by side, often practices which mutually question each other.30 Based on Sacrosanctum Concilium, the main revision of the liturgical books took place during the period 1963- 1973. It was a period of rapid, top-down change. It is remarkable that bishops from all over the world, most of whom were not noted for being liturgical leaders in their own areas, gave their assent to a document which would change the way they prayed. 31 This is certainly true of the New Zealand Episcopate, and is so clearly obvious in their approach to the implementation of pastoral liturgical reforms. McKeefry and Sneddon typify the approach of 'slowly slowly, one thing at a time, lets wait until someone does something'. They were people who followed the papal dictates and waited for the official directives to be issued. Neither of them are noted for instigating much experimentation and were to a large extend only enforcers of official liturgical practices. 27SC, no: 10. 28ibid. , no. 14. 29Liston Papers,[List.J no. 19 .. ACA, : Letter, McKeefry to Liston 17 June 1961 , 'The puzzle to me is how all the varying opinions are to be reconciled. but I suppose the Italian ability for compromise will see to that'. 30GRIM, nos. 244-252. See for instance the Practice of Communion from the chalice. as it offers drinking, intinction, and spoons. while promoting the principle of eating and drinking communion. 31Kavanagh, p.69. and Mark Serie. Pastoral Centre Lectures, taped, 1990. 22 From the above outline one can see that Sacrosanctum Concilium was not just the product of fifteen general sessions of the Council (22 October to 13 November 1962), but also an expression of much scholarship throughout the preceding one hundred years. It was passed by a vote of the bishops of 2147 to 4. Then began the work of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia, a working group established by Paul VI on 29 January 1964. It was this Consilium's task was to revise the liturgical books in accordance with the norms of the Council Document to provide education for priests and laity and to animate the renewal of Catholic worship32. It became its role to bring the document to life in the Church and in the process it met with much opposition, because in countries like New Zealand the Church was not completely prepared for such a change. The task of directing the liturgical renewal fell to the bishops, but the task of enfleshing Pastoral Liturgy essentially fell to the priests. Among the priests were a small group, whose enthusiasm had been sparked in the preceding decade. 32Martimort. Yol 1 p.80. 23 Chapter Two: Who is driving the reforms?. Was the New Zealand Church ready for such a change? This chapter examines the perfunctory manner in which the reforms were implemented, largely due to the fact that the bishops, with two notable exceptions, were not enthusiastic for the renewal directed by Sacrosanctum Concilium. Here, for the first time the work of the St Paul's group at Holy Cross College during the 1950s is documented. Later, the members of this group were very influential and provided practical leadership in the development of liturgy in New Zealand during the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Generally the Catholic Church in New Zealand during the later part of the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s could be categorised as a conservative church which was not prepared for major renewal. Given the hierarchical nature of church structure, there was very little room for movement by both clergy and laity. The volume of letters addressed to the bishops by both clergy and laity asking permission for even the most trivial requests, gives one the overriding impression that nothing was done without first getting permission from the bishop. The dominant role of the bishop is very obvious even to the casual observer. With the advent of liturgical renewal during the 1960s not everyone was caught by surprise. There was a small group of priests from various dioceses who were prepared for it. Their preparation had begun as members of the St. Paul's group back in the 1950s at the National Seminary in Mosgiel. The St. Paul's group was begun by Basil Meeking, a seminarian from Christchurch diocese.1 Msgr. Brian Arahill, another member of the St Paul's group, remembers that in 1951 Basil Meeking was known as someone very interested in the liturgical movement, who was already receiving overseas periodicals like La Maison Dieu. Meeking had sought permission to begin the St. Paul's group, which met on Sunday mornings outside of class time under the chaplaincy of Father Ronald Cox, the Scripture Professor. The Rector, Fr. Bernard Courtney supported the group by allowing it to function in the Seminary. 1 Since 1996 Emeritus Bishop of Christchurch Originally the group's aim was not to prepare for the 1960s, but to remain informed of the trends which were moving the Church in the 1950s. Describing the seminary of that time, Basil Meeking writes 'there was ... some awareness of what was happening liturgically in Europe, but it required a catalyst to get some of the students interested and discussing it in a systematic way, St Paul's group provided that.'2 The St Paul's was a response to the movements in the Church which had occurred after the Second World War in areas as diverse as patristics, liturgy, scripture, reconstruction of society, and the cold war. 'Something of all this had communicated itself to those who took part in St. Paul's group and they wanted to talk about it together in a systematic way and to discuss what it might mean for their pastoral work as priests', writes Meeking. Essentially the group understood the liturgy as more than rubrics or ceremony and wanted to give 'practical expression to the insights of the liturgical movement in parishes in New Zealand.'3 Through study of two important writings by Pius XII , The Mystical Body of Christ (1945) and Divine Worship (1947) together with other material, they came to appreciate the deeper theological meaning of liturgy. Occasionally the group also initiated practical demonstrations of what could be achieved. When Basil Meeking was ordained and left the seminary, Msgr. John Broadbent, later Rector of the seminary himself, took over the groups' leadership. The last leader of St Paul's group was Brian Arahill until late in 1955 when it was ended. Arahill recalls being summoned to the Rector's office and told that the group could no longer operate because the Bishop of Dunedin, Dr. John Kavanagh, decided it was not 'according to the mind of the Church and ordered the Rector to disband the group. 4 Meeking writes that 'eventually a new rector, not so sure of himself theologically, and, I have been given to understand, the fears of at least one bishop, led to its demise, but it had probably served its purpose by then. •s The St Paul's group discussed ideas such as Mass facing the people, vernacular languages being used, communion under both kinds and in the hand, as well as the reform of the Holy Week ceremonies. According to Arahill, at that stage there was 2Basil Meeking, 23 July 1996, unpublished text. 3ibid. , 4Brian Arahill, interview. 14 March 1996, Auckland. 5Meeking, 23 July I 996. 25 no one on the staff who taught liturgy or was aware of those things and that 'Basil Meeking was the only one that was aware of these things as far as I can recall, '6 and certainly there is no evidence to the contrary. Meeking's place in the narrative of New Zealand liturgical history is central.7 Rev. David Blake who was also a member of the St Paul's group, describes Meeking's insights into the reform of the liturgy as 'magnificent'8. Meeking's involvement continued later as a member of the Christchurch Diocesan Liturgy Commission and he was noted, or notorious, for liturgical implementation in the Christchurch area. There is much anecdotal evidence of his parish church resounding to the sounds of modern music long before this practice became popular and to the sight of liturgical dance, much to the horror and bewilderment of the majority of parishioners then and the amusement of those who compare this stage to his period as Bishop of Christchurch. The presence of the St. Paul's group is crucial in showing that a section of the New Zealand Catholic Church were interested and aware of the liturgical movement. Some members of the clergy were reading liturgical publications, but the trend was not general. Most of the material the St Paul's group used came in particular from North American and French liturgical journals and Fr. J.D. Crichton of Birmingham Archdiocese, England, with whom Basil Meeking was in contact. Though there had been very limited liturgical movement in New Zealand prior to 1964, the influence of the members of the St Paul's group was crucial in the development of Pastoral Liturgy from 1963 onwards. Because the St Paul's group was a voluntary one in the seminary, the clergy were generally more comfortable with rubrical liturgical practice and not well informed about contemporary trends. Among both clergy and laity, the practical leadership offered by members of this group was so important. 6 Ara.hill. 14 March 1996. 7ibid. In the interview Brian Arahill stated: 'I would say that Basil Meeking must in the future be credited with being the founder of the liturgical renewal in New Zealand. 14 March 1996. 8David Blake, interview. 14 March 1996, Auckland. 26 In contrast to the small and relatively un-influential St Paul's group, the New Zealand church as represented by its Episcopal leaders, was generally unprepared for the advent of Pastoral Liturgy. When changes were introduced from Rome, the bishops' method of implementation was to inform people of the forthcoming reforms, rather than form within them a sense of ownership for the changes. The implementation of Pastoral Liturgy was intended, wrote Pope Paul VI, 'to give expression to the Pascal Mystery in people's lives'.9 In the same document ,Paul VI insisted on the need for good formation for the people, instructing the bishops to provide the formation which would ensure the full and active participation by them in the renewed liturgy. As a group of leaders, the New Zealand bishops had only two members with the vision necessary for implementing the changes in the Church: Reginald Delargy and Brian Ashby. But Delargy was Auxiliary Bishop of Auckland and had limited authority of his own and Ashby, consecrated Bishop of Christchurch in 1964, was the new boy on the block in the Epsicopal Conference. Both as individuals and as a conference, the bishops' attitude and understanding of Pastoral Liturgy were crucial, but one could characterise the Episcopal Conference as a reactive rather than proactive group. They were paternalistic too, in their contentment to go slowly, so as not to upset the people, without admitting that often it was their own Catholic identity they did not want disturbed. Peter McKeefry, Archbishop of Wellington and James Liston, Bishop of Auckland were the key bishops during this period. Their personal relationship is important to any analysis of the period. Neither of them wanted the Church to change, yet both implemented the changes in the Church because they had to. It was their job, not their choice. This underlying attitude is obvious in their approach to the changes, both in their own dioceses and in the Episcopal Conference. Cardinal Mckeefry is reputed to have said on his return from the first session of the Vatican Council, 'English in the Mass? over my dead body!' and they did; he was buried according to the Novus Missae of 1969. Given McKeefry's position as principal Bishop and President of the Episcopal Conference, his attitude towards the changes is central. McKeefry's attitude to liturgical reform as noted in the Conference minutes was, 'that there was nothing to be lost in going slowly about the introduction 9Pope Paul VI, 'Motu Proprio on the Sacred Liturgy' Sacram Liturgiam, 25 January 1964 no.6., in Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. (ed) Austin Flannery, O.P .. (Minnesota, 1975), p.46. 27 of further changes, especially in view of the possibility that the Consilium was already at work on the radically new "Ordo Missae"'. 10 Within the Conference too, there was a definite hierarchy which shows itself in the decisions which were made. McKeefry was strongly influenced by James Liston for whom he had worked, before being appointed Coadjutor Archbishop of Wellington. McKeefry was born in Greymouth in 1902 and had attended the Christian Brothers school in Dunedin before going to the seminary at Holy Cross College in Mosgiel for three years. During these three years he was taught by Liston before going to Rome for four years to continue his studies at Propaganda Fide College and being ordained Priest in Rome at Easter 1926. On his return to New Zealand he was appointed curate at the Cathedral parish in Auckland and secretary to Bishop Cleary, from there he worked on the Diocesan paper 'The Month'. From December 1929 he was Liston's efficient and trusted secretary and editor-manager of Zealandia, retaining the editorship for twenty years. McKeefry's affection for Liston is quite obvious from the many letters he wrote to him. It was to his mentor Liston that McKeefry once wrote, 'Your guidance, kindly directives and generous help on all occasions have made it an easy way, and the friendship of years with constant union at the Altar' .11 While much of the correspondence between McKeefry and Liston during McKeefry's absences at the Council in Rome concerns issues of Catholic education in New Zealand, the letters also reveal McKeefry's attitude towards the Council and the changes in the liturgy. Writing from Rome on October 31st 1964 McKeefry describes the session as 'wearying days -boring at times' and that it has 'been hard and constant and nothing very special to show', but 'if the committees do their job then there will [be] some hope of one or more constitution'. 12 McKeefry criticised the reporting of the Council session of 1964. He considered the North American standards of reporting to 'have been extensive but poor and in some cases will have been adding to the general confusion that some of our people are experiencing.' While he felt that in the end much good would result from the reforms, 10Delargy Papers, [Del.), 10.2. ACA. 11 List. 161, ACA: papers. Liston's role of mentor to McKeefry is also attested to by Ernest Simmons in his book A Brief History of the Catholic Church in New Zealand. (Auckland, 1978). 12List., 161, ACA. 28 it was he wrote,'a pity that developments have to be thought of as judgements on the past or that the Church is just another human organisation subjected to whims in the past..boloney to that stuff.'13 In September of 1964 McKeefry penned a letter to Liston, 'Carissimo Padre', in which he gave a typical description of the Council: The weather was hot 'not a breath of wind to cool things .... The only thing worse was going to the Council and having to stew while windbags shot their mouths off. We were on the Church and Collegiality. Some contributions were good, but most just unending fervour, most uninspiring and irritating. We have been making progress and should be able to cover all the agenda before ending. No word if this will be the final­ most hope so but there still exists the fear that the Curia will gum up the works if too much is left for it to tidy-up.' 14 He signed it 'devotedly yours, your devoted child'. McKeefry again wrote to Liston at the end of the Council, expressing his relief that the Council was over: The Council is over and it is slowly working its way out of my system. They have been great years to have lived through, and the future will reveal much that in the weariness of days we may not have realised. There will also be strenuous days ahead, but let's hope that with an end to journalists' wild speculations there will come full tranquillity to our people. 15 Liston shared McKeefry's desire to return to peace and tranquillity once the Council had ended. They had seemed to see the reforms in the liturgy as a movement from one rigid rubrical system to another, and expected the new adaptation to form a solid unchanging ritual practice for the next four hundred years. The concept of continual adaptation and inculturation seems to have evaded them. McKeefry certainly mourned the passing of the pre-Conciliar Catholic worship. His attitude is clear from the following instances. In March 1959 McKeefry replied to a 13,ibid.: letter. McKeefry to Liston, 1964. 14Lis 19, ACA: letter. McKeefry to Liston. 7 September. 1964. 15ibid.: letter. McKeefry to Liston, 15 December 1965. 29 letter from the Catholic Doctors' Guild which supported a greater use of the vernacular in the Mass. Endeavouring to express his own thoughts concerning vernacular worship, he writes: First, the liturgy proper is concerned solely with the Eucharistic rite which is essentially an action of sacrifice and, as an action is extremely restricted in the words associated with it. When we look at the ritualistic prayers surrounding the action we see in them not only prayers in keeping with the primary and secondary objectives of the action, but also prayers which, over the course of centuries, have been framed to express dogmatic truth. Hence there is a certain precision in the words chosen, and the meaning in those words has to be safeguarded, for in them lies a statement of essential truth. That being the case, the church has been jealous in preserving Latin in the Western Church ... . The English language today, through the loss of a unifying philosophy, has lost also appreciation in word and were the language of the Eucharistic rite to be put into English it is very doubtful if the purity of belief could be as well maintained. 16 While this letter does not constitute the 'setting down a position of opposition to the introduction of some prayers in the vernacular', it is a clear expression of his position. Given his understanding of 'essential truth', the use of the vernacular in the Canon [Eucharistic Prayer] of the Mass is problematic, but it could be used in other sacraments and sacramentals. His concept of a theological distinction between the Eucharist and the other six sacraments at the level of the essential truth being preserved in the ritual language for one and not the others is a reflection of his theological training. Justifying the use of the vernacular in this way in 1959 must have made it difficult for McKeefry, less than ten years later, to accept the use of English in the Eucharistic Canon of the Mass. McKeefry's attitude towards the use of the vernacular did not really change. In two letters (1964 and 1970) to Fr. Con. O'Connor SM, Novice Master of the Marist Fathers Noviciate at Highden near Palmerston North, McKeefry's attitude is quite clear. In 1964 O'Connor had written complaining about the use of the vernacular in the Mass, regretting the passing of Latin and the detrimental effect on the seminarians Latin 16Liturgy Papers, McKeefry, Peter, T.. and Sneddon. Owen. N., Liturgy 1954 to 1985, [Lit.'54) WCA: letter. 22 March 1959. 30 study. 17 At that time McKeefry had recommended an English Mass only once a month. In 1970 O'Connor wrote to McKeefry on the same issue, McKeefry's reply reveals his true sentiments: I sympathise fully with you in your regrets over the gradual departure from the Latin Mass. I still adhere to the Latin Mass except when I am out in Parish Churches. Then, I go along with the new form of the rite insofar as it has been at present implemented. I shall do the same after the First Sunday of Advent (1970] , but privately, my Masses shall remain in Latin. I did my liturgy under Tardini, who was a purist in Latin, and like yourself I detest many of the translations that have been inflicted upon us. However, we can hope that when it comes to the final translation of the new Roman Missal some of these defects will be remedied. 18 Such a comment from one who is primarily responsible for implementing a new practice of ritual worship is not comforting, because of the dichotomy it displays between official practice and private stance. Jt is an attitude which unquestionably had a marked influence on the process of liturgical implementation in New Zealand during this period. McKeefry implemented the new liturgical reforms out of sense of duty and loyalty to the Vatican, rather than any sense of agreement with the theology of Pastoral Liturgy. McKeefry's overall attitude towards the Vatican Council was one of studied frustration. His personal position on private Masses, while still in accord with Church directives, was not what every priest desired. 19 McKeefry was a man of his time and the new age would test his resolve. A further instance is McKeefry's reply to a letter from E.P. Cahill about the negative effect of the changes in the liturgy.20 McKeefry acknowledges that 'the liturgical changes that have been made have caused a lot of heartache to many people and one must sympathise with those who are disturbed'. McKeefry describes the place of vernacular in worship as a poor substitute for Latin, made necessary by lower educational standards: 17ibid. : letter, August I 964. 18ibid.: letter 19 November 1970. 19ibid.: letter, Allardyce to McKeefry, 30 March 1966. Allardyce asked permission to celebrate a private Mass in English. because he had two altar servers present. McKeefry denied permission because 'the general ruling has been that private Masses are to be in Latin.' 20ibid.: letter, E.P. Cahill to McKeefry, 7 September 1970. 31 while people today have become more literate, Latin is unfortunately no longer part of the general educational background. If it were not for this, it would have been possible to have preserved the Latin Mass which on account of its centuries-old use had its own special form , and so preserved that essential note of mystery that made for a profound faith . Now we are finding too many who think that "activity" must be emphasised, and there is a real danger that where freedom is allowable in certain adaptations the use of this freedom could cloud the essential nature of the Mass. 21 [my emphasis added] To blame the lack of familiarity with Latin as a reason for the development of vernacular worship is ridiculous. In the days before widespread literacy most Catholic people were illiterate in both their own language and the language of worship. It was not the lack of instruction in Latin, but the rise in appreciation of one's own language as the vehicle for worship which was responsible for the development of vernacular worship. His reference, to freedom 'in certain adaptations' clouding 'the essential nature of the Mass', signals too a growing fear of loss of control over the implementation process and possibly over the future direction of the Church. McKeefry's argument reflects his general inability to understand the depth of the renewal which the Church was demanding. McKeefry followed up this letter with one to Owen Sneddon in which he suggested that the National Liturgy Committee should give some thought to the former letter, as the sentiments expressed were true for a good many people. In these letters, we see the true McKeefry, a man who really did not want or support the vernacular Mass. Because of his training and position, he did not have the freedom to publicly oppose or question its implementation; because he too was constrained by the hierarchical system he administered. His negative influence within the Episcopal Conference and on Sneddon his assistant cannot be underestimated or ignored as contributing towards the lack of initiative by the Episcopal Conference's Liturgy Committee pater the Commission] and for the dearth of good liturgical leadership in the Archdiocese of Wellington. When Delargy replaced McKeefry, one of the difficulties he had to face was a Presbyterate formed in the McKeefry model. Since the days of McKeefry the Wellington Archdiocese has struggled in the area of 21 ibid.: letter. McKeefry to E.P. Cahill. 14 September. 1970. 32 liturgical implementation and has exercised a limited liturgical influence in New Zealand. Liston's attitude is not dissimilar to McKeefry's, except in one crucial way, Liston did not inhibit development in the same way that McKeefry did in Wellington, but rather used the initiative of Reginald Delargy whom he had chosen as his assistant Bishop in 1958 and Delargy's enormous energy for change.22 Liston, though autocratic in his style of governance and not himself in total agreement with Church reforms, was an intelligent and loyal churchman. Though he never attended any of the Council sessions, he was not uninformed of the Council's progress or direction. Appointed coadjutor Bishop of Auckland to assist Bishop Cleary in 1920, Liston was an influential figure in the lives of both McKeefry and Owen Sneddon who became auxiliary Bishop of Wellington to McKeefry. In the 1960s Liston was the senior bishop and an old man, with the personal title of Archbishop. In 1965 he was 85 years old and had already served for 45 years as a bishop in Auckland. Liston's temperament was such that while people respected him, he was not held in great affection. His violent outbursts towards his priests had resulted in a difficult relationship between priest and bishop, which Ernest Simmons, describes as being 'more like that of schoolboy to a rather tyrannical and feared headmaster, than of priest to a fellow priest or father in God.'23 Even though he allowed many things to happen in the area of liturgical reform and encouraged people such as Fr. David Blake of Auckland to found and to build up the Catholic Printing Centre [CPC], all real power of decision making rested in his hands. Jocelyn Franklin, Bishop Delargy's secretary from 1959 until 1965 remembered times when Delargy's loyalty to Liston was sorely tested: many times he [Delargy] would be making decisions and doing this or that and people would go over his head to the Archbishop or else the Archbishop would make a decision and being an auxiliary bishop it was very, very hard .... 24 22 ACA, Liston papers: letter of Episcopalible. 23Ernest Simmons A Brief History of the Catholic Church in New Zealand, (Auckland. 1978), p.105. 24Jocelyn Franklin. interview, 12 June I 996. Auckland. 33 There is no doubt writes Simmons, that Liston often seemed 'grossly unfair in his judgements and vindictive in his actions', but that he was nonetheless 'a leader of considerable stature, both in the eyes of his own people, of the whole Church in New Zealand and of the general public.'25 Liston's gift to the Auckland Diocese was his ability to see that the changes were not fleeting and even though he did not agree with all the implications, he allowed people to develop and the future to happen. The missalettes which CPC produced from 1968 onwards were originally the idea of Liston, who knew that if the people were to participate in the Mass, they had to have material which would enable this to happen. Liston allowed Delargy the opportunity to attend all the Council sessions. His authority was such that if he had not wanted Delargy to be absent from the country, he would have forbidden him to go, and Delargy would have had no choice, given his position as Auxiliary Bishop and his natural loyalty to Church authority. Though Liston never instituted a Diocesan Liturgy Committee, the work of Reginald Delargy and David Blake at CPC, together with people such as Laurie Sakey (who produced his own hymn book), John Mackey of the Catholic Education Office and Felix Donnelly in the area of catechetics, were undoubtedly effective in implementing the reforms in the liturgy.26 Delargy was well aware of Liston's position. In a letter to Archbishop Guilford Young a personal friend, Delargy wrote: His Grace, [Liston] the Archbishop here, is alert to the spirit of the Documents and progressive in principle, but slow to move in any radical way. Altars facing the people, etc. only now getting acceptance. On the other hand, his programme on education for the Diocese in the spirit of the Council is ahead of most places, or at least, that is my impression.27 Reginald Delargy shines through as the New Zealand bishop most at home with the Vatican Council and the changes it was bringing about. Only Brian Ashby of Christchurch displayed a similar ease. Delargy attended all of the Council sessions and spent much of this period travelling between New Zealand and Rome. Delargy also had many contacts world-wide, with people who were at the cutting edge of the 25Simmons, History, p.106. 26Delargy set up the first 'steering' Liturgical Committee in Auckland diocese in mid 1970. This arrangement was formalised in May 1982. 27Del. 5. ACA: letter. Delargy to Young,' 3 September. 1966. 34 reforms, including Godfrey Diekmann, the American Benedictine and Liturgist and Archbishop Guilford Young of Hobart. Delargy's energy seemed infinite. Simmons described him as 'a leader of unusual quality', but one whose leadership was confusing at times for his priests.28 Uncharacteristically among bishops of the day, Delargy's interest in the Council stemmed from his activity in the lay apostolate. 29 For Delargy, the theology of the Church was one which naturally included the laity, their formation and their role as ministers of the Gospel. Delargy's ease and McKeefry's unease with the renewal of the Church and the apostolate of the laity could partly explain the difficult relationship between these two men. McKeefry 'seemed to lose few opportunities, public or private,' to put Delargy in his place.30 In a letter to Liston from Rome in November 1964 McKeefry wrote, 'Reg is the only one that seems to be able to keep his enthusiasms -most often bubbling and always stimulating, even if I do not agree with him, but then he is used to that, and always comes back for more'.31 Delargy's vision of the Church was not an easy vision for others to follow. The priests of the Auckland diocese often felt bewildered by Delargy's leadership methods because his way of operating was so totally different from Liston's. Delargy simply assumed that the laity would be part and parcel of the Church reforms. When the bishops set up the National Liturgical Commission, it was Delargy who insisted that full use be made of the clergy, religious and laity in the commission. An example of Delargy's position can be seen in his address to the Anglican's Men's Society in Auckland in 1966. He explained that 'if the Church is to come to grips with the modern world, it must discuss more than Liturgy, but in fact to begin this way was truly inspired'. He pointed out that the way in which people pray is a reflection of what they believe and that the present time of debate and experimentation in the Catholic Church would provide it with an 'opportunity for one and all to sort out their ideas on the nature and needs of modern man'. For Delargy this was the beginning of a new 28Simmons, History, p. 109. 29He started the Catholic Youth Movement in 1939 and attended the lay congress with Fr. John Curnow of Christchurch in 1957. Delargy was a devotee of the J.O.C. the Catholic Youth Movement [CYM] begun in Belgium by Fr. Cardijn. The Catholic Youth Movement sought to change society by studying the Gospel and putting them into practise following the principles of Catholic Action. 30Siinmons, History, p. 110. 31Lis 161, ACA: letter, 24 November 1964. 35 age and the 'reconstruction of the Liturgy and its adaptation to local conditions,[was] more radical that ardent supporters had thought possible before the Council'.32 Such was Delargy's enthusiasm for the reform. Delargy's own energy and his direct contact with the Council and some of its chief architects meant that he was a dynamic proponent of change. By contrast Owen Sneddon, who was the Episcopal deputy for Liturgy and a member of the International Committee for English in the Liturgy [ICEL),33 did not have the same enthusiasm. He was much more conservative by nature and had very little contact with the Lay Apostolate movements before the Council. He was born in Auckland, studied in Rome for seven years, gaining a post-graduate degree in theology. He was famous for his wartime broadcasts on Vatican radio to New Zealand, reporting the status of allied prisoners of war which made him known outside Catholic circles. With Mons. Hugh Flannagan and others, Sneddon at personal risk helped hide allied soldiers and airmen who came through Rome on the run from Italian and German forces. For his part in this wartime effort Sneddon was awarded a MBE by the British. On his return to New Zealand, he was appointed Assistant editor of Zealandia in 1947 and later editor. Sneddon was appointed to Wellington Archdiocese in 1962. Sneddon is remembered as a very shy and retiring man, who did every thing diligently. He was able and intelligent, well read and cultured, but these aspects alone could not fit him to his task as a leader in liturgy. Sneddon was not a noted liturgist before or after the Vatican Council. In fact Owen Sneddon was not a leader. His shyness, to the point of physical illness, and an apparent lack of self esteem inhibited his ability to provide definite direction for priests during the liturgical reforms. 32Del. 5. ACA: letter. November 1966. 33The first meeting of the International Committee for English in the Liturgy [ICEL] was held at the Venerable English College in Rome on October 17th 1963. ICEL was created by the English speaking bishops to work on the translations of the latin te>.15 into English. The Vatican had directed that there could only be one tex't for the same language groups. ICEL drew its experts from North America and England and is now based in Washington DC. Cardinal Heenan had great difficulty with the concept and work of ICEL, because he of the language differences between British English and American English. which he fell dominated the texts. he also found the translations to be simplistic and banal and on occasions quite wrong. None of this is a surprise given Heenan's 'no' vote to Sacrosanctum concilium in the Council. 36 The indecisive nature of the National Liturgy Commission reflects traits of Sneddon's own character and the dominance of McKeefry's power. Sneddon's inability to offer leadership to the Commission meant it was in constant need of some other authority to provide the insights and material for implementation. Sneddon did not have a free hand since he was McKeefry's Auxiliary, a position without authority or real influence and the effectiveness was often limited because McKeefry 'reserved certain decisions to himself.34 In Christchurch Brian Ashby was consecrated bishop according to the pre-conciliar rite on Wednesday 15 August 1964. Coming as he did from the Catholic Enquiry Centre in Wellington to the episcopate in the middle of the Vatican Council, he appears to have had a good sense of the impending changes in the Church. Although Ashby was more personally concerned with ecumenism than liturgy, he was the only Bishop with both a Liturgy Commission and a Music Commission. Ashby had established both Commissions in May 1965 with the brief to 'secure a uniform liturgical practice in the celebration of Holy Mass'. He later combined the two commissions and formed a single Liturgy Commission on 30 October 1967 under the chairmanship of Reverend Dr. G.W. Harrison. Ashby was the youngest Bishop in the New Zealand conference. McKeefry's observation of him at the Council was: 34Lit '54. WCA: letters, Sneddon to O'Dea, Sneddon to Blake, see also Lis 57.5, ACA: letters. Snedden to Delargy over the use of the Chapman Lectionary, below: 20 July 1966 Sneddon to all bishops, about the availability of Chapman Publishers LTD. People's Holy Week Book, letter to Delargy re: a new Lectionary, from George Chapman. July 29 1966: Delargy to Sneddon, 'commenting on the need for some thing, but that the Chapmans' Book could be of limited value. August 8 1966: Sneddon to Delargy, 'Thank you for your comments on Chapman's letter and the various Liturgical books. I hope it will not be too long before we can get something underway as regards the Lectionary programme, but you know how things are at the moment.' 26 October 1966: Delargy to Snedden. 'Was anything decided about the Chapman Holy Week Book? Archbishop Liston is prepared to have one done by Chapman. If nothing else is coming up, I might encourage him.' 4 Nov. 1966: Sneddon to Delargy, 'The Chapman Holy Week Book is under consideration at the moment. and I hope to have a decision before too long.' 37 For Brian I think the session has been most invaluable. Apart from giving him a sense of status it has brought him face to face with situations, topics and people and all this will enable him to enter again into Ch.Ch. not so much as a former priest just consecrated, but as one freshly aware of obligations, duties and equally aware that the Holy Ghost is there to inspire and guide.35 John Kavanagh, the Bishop of Dunedin, was a canon lawyer by trade, and it shows in his approach to the liturgical renewals. He implemented the changes because he had to, and did what was necessary to inform the priests and people of Dunedin diocese, but he was not a leader in the area, noF even progressive. His main and important contribution was managing the production of new interim texts through the use of the Tablet newspaper and printing company. The period prior to the changes of the 1960s can be characterised by the necessity of getting things right in terms of the liturgy. This is most probably a result of the training which the Clergy received in the Seminaries. Liturgy manuals such as Fortesque­ O'Connell's The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Oescribecf.36 left nothing to chance, nor to the imagination. Every movement of the bishop, priest or deacon is described in minute detail, where the overriding concerns focus on the legal [Canon Law] requirements for saying Mass and the use of approved texts. Given the change from a very rigid ritual prescription to a more Pastoral Liturgy during the mid sixties, a reaction on the part of the priests was not unexpected. Due to a real dearth of material which priests could use during this time of transition, several priests moved ahead and either translated their own material, or used material from other English speaking countries. Two priests from the Wellington Archdiocese to do this were Frs. Shaun Hurley and Barry Edwards. In Porirua Shaun Hurley had made his own translation of songs from Latin into English for use at the Sunday Mass.37 In 35List.. ACA: letter, McKeefry to Liston. 36Fortescue-O'Connell, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described. 11th ed. (London, 1960). 37Lit.'54. WCA: letter, Shaun Hurley to Owen Sneddon. 16 January 1968, re: permission to use an English Mass and the four hymn sandwich as a 'stop gap' measure. Hurley explained that the parish had been singing the proper in English 'using an English adaptation by myself of the Latin People's mass', which was 'satisfactory'. Hurley requested a recommended or approved sung Mass for New Zealand of good quality. Sneddon replied on 13th February 1968 that there was nothing yet and that the Liturgy Commission and Episcopal Conference would raise the issue. 38 Wanganui, Barry Edwards had made his own translation of the Mass from Latin into English38, but these initiatives were never fully utilised in the Wellington Archdiocese. Implementing the new liturgy was not easy for the bishops, nor for the majority of priests, because it presumed a new theological starting point than that espoused in Fortescue-O'Connell. Because the implementation of Pastoral Liturgy involved both a changed theology and a less hierarchical structure, the bishops often appear caught between the new liturgy and the old methods of Episcopal governance. Often there is tension between what an individual bishop might want and the reluctance of Episcopal Conference to act This was sometimes due to the desire by the bishops, especially Liston, McKeefry and Kavanagh, for New Zealand to be seen as one homogenous church. The lack of decisive action by the Episcopal Conference and the dependence of the New Zealand Church on other countries is very evident There is the constant refrain throughout the late sixties from Owen Sneddon that the liturgical texts were not available for distribution, because nothing had arrived from Rome, or from ICEL. 39 An example of this dependence is a letter to Geoffrey Chapman Publishers, where Delargy comments on the New Zealand situation, As you well understand NZ is a very small place and we must depend on what is done elsewhere. There are no firm decisions and it is not likely that there will be for some months. However, as regards the Mass we will be depending greatly on the Layman's Missal Prayer book. We do not intend to use the vernacular all the time and will be providing simple leaflet forms for the Propers. 40 Dependence on others to do the ground-breaking theological work was also symptomatic of New Zealand's small size and its lack of trained liturgists. By 1965 this situation had begun to change, in the minor areas of the liturgy. 41 But it was only with the creation of the Auckland Catholic Printing Centre in 1968 that New Zealand's dependence on other countries for liturgical material and expertise was lessened. 38ibid., 39Bishops Conferences minutes, 1963-1971, WCA. 40Del. 63-70, ACA: letter, 15 June 1964. 41Del.10:-l , ACA. 39 Before the widespread availability of local texts the Episcopal Conference had produced material which was intended only to inform, not to form people in the new direction of Pastoral Liturgy. In their pastoral letter of 1966 the bishops' mirrored the suggestions of Pope Paul VI in his letter Mirificus eventus42,in which he suggested various means for educating the Catholic population regarding the liturgical and church changes. 43 The bishops themselves offered four initiatives which they hoped would educate the Catholic people. Firstly, from the third Sunday of Lent until Pentecost a period of nine weeks there should be a weekly talk given by the Parish Priest or another competent priest on the Council documents. Secondly, from Easter Sunday onwards there would be homilies on the nature of the Christian life as in the Constitution on the Church. Thirdly, the suggestion to give children ritual experiences and appropriate instruction on the role of the bishop as 'shepherd of his people'. And lastly, to invite adult parishioners to join in the children's ceremonies and make visits to churches. Even with the enticement of a Plenary Indulgence for each attendance at three meetings explaining the Council decrees the response to this initiative was not great as the bishops expected. 44 In the Pastoral they exhorted the Catholic people 'to study for yourselves and make prayerful imitation on the Council documents as they become available. '45 Though they felt that liturgy because its symbolism and language was not understood by the vast majority of Catholics, the bishops did not set up an effective education programme throughout the country to ensure the formation of the Catholic population. The bishops' response reflects a presumption that an implementation of change from above using tried and true methods was sufficient. The incentive of the Plenary Indulgence is a good example of an old practice which even then was becoming less and less viable in the developing new spirituality of the 1960s and 70s. The suggestion that the parish priests run sessions on the Council is a direct reflection of the priest's classes for converts, when he instructed people in doctrine, passing on knowledge about the beliefs of the Church, while not always being concerned for developing the faith of the individual. It was also a difficult call for many priests, who were themselves as shell-shocked by the changes as the people they 427 December 1965. 43zealandia, 10 March 1966, p. l. 44Lit '54. WCA: letter, McKeefiy to Liston, Kavanagh to McKeefry, see also National Liturgy Commission Box, CDA: letter, Ashby to Delargy. 45 ibid., p. l. 40 ministered to. In some cases they were also less well informed about the Vatican Council's aims and direction than the laity. 46 Assessing the effectiveness of the reforms and people's reaction to them is problematic because of the way in which the bishops handled the two surveys which were undertaken for ICEL in March 1967 and the Holy See in June. Both ICEL and the Holy See wanted to gather opinions as to how the translations and the reforms were being received by Catholics. While the bishops published ICEL texts so the 'average mass-goer' could have their say47, the results of the questionnaire were of little practical value to ICEL, because the number of respondents was so low. The Vatican survey was supposed to be have carried out through the national and diocesan liturgy commissions to gain a more precise knowledge of the legitimate aspirations of the clergy and of the Christian people, but it was not 48 McKeefry in his covering letter acknowledged the suggestion by the Concilium to use national and diocesan commissions but he felt 'it would be better if we amalgamated the views of the Bishops with the observations of a cross-section of the Parish Priests'. In doing this McKeefry undid the effectiveness of the Commission and the Concilium. McKeefry then incorporated 'into the questionnaire' the suggestions of the bishops' and 'selected parish priests'. 49 Had the survey been allowed to continue it would have revealed some of the needs which the Catholic community were facing. Because this did not happen in New Zealand a valuable source of information was lost This approach characterised the relationship between the bishops and the National Liturgy Commission and resulted in the commission's inadequate liturgical leadership. 46Rev. P Murry The priest are just as much bewildered as the laity with all the changes in the Church'. in Zea/andia, 5 May 1966. 47Lit. '54, WAC: statement. Consultation of the Laity. see also Tablet, 22. February 1967. 'New Zealanders get a say in Texts for Proper of the Mass: Experts want to hear from the ordinary Mass-Goers'. 48Letter to bishops 15 June 1967, in Documents on the Liturgy, p.140. see also Lit. '54. WCA: letter, request for information to be provided through national and diocesan liturgy commissions or 'other bodies normally used' by the bishops and to have the information in Rome by 30th November of 1967. The Concilium was interested in how the liturgical reforms were working on pastoral level and whether the number of worshippers had increased or decreased? Had use of the vernacular increased more active and intelligent participation. what reaction had there been to the reforms? There had been a previous request by the Conciliurn in march 1965 for written reports from presidents of Episcopal conferences on the 'first steps of liturgical reform. Also in List. 3 :69 .2 and List. 63 .1., ACA. 49List. , 3:69.2, ACA. 41 On 19 May Sneddon wrote to the bishops' regarding the Second Instruction on the Sacred Liturgy50, which was to come into effect on 29 June 1967. Kavanagh sent copies of the booklet containing the Instruction with comments and instructions for the bishops and clergy.51 To the official comments of Bugnini, Kavanagh added some local comments and pointed out for the Bishops the issues that they had yet to decide upon. At this stage the Instructions and letter from the Vatican regarding the reforms were coming thick and fast Between January and August 1967 there were ten letters or instructions on the liturgy. In May 1967 McKeefry consulted the bishops regarding petitioning Rome for permission to use English in the ordination rite. With their agreement he petitioned Rome and received an affirmative answer on 9 June. The latest changes in the liturgy were printed in the two Catholic papers and copies were sent to the priests. The major change was yet to come, that of the vernacular in the Canon or Eucharistic Prayer. In Consilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia on 21 June 1967 Cardinal Lecarno, President of the Concilium, wrote of the place of the vernacular in the Eucharistic Prayer, or Canon as the 'last step in the gradual extension of the vernacular'. Pressure was brought to bear on the bishops to implement the new order of Mass as soon as possible. The Apostolic Delegate to New Zealand wrote asking 'the Episcopal Conference of New Zealand ... according to instructions received by me from the Cardinal Secretary of State to His Holiness, to adopt as soon as possible the new liturgical text for the Mass as issued by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy'. 52 Ireland by comparison had introduced the vernacular in the Canon and new Eucharistic prayers on 1 December 1968'. 53 Here one of the major blocks was the bishops' disagreement over the translation of the Our Father [Pater Noster). They were divided over the use of the present text 50Tres abhinc annos 'Second Instruction on the carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy', 4 May 1967. 51Lit. '54. WCA: letter. Kavanagh to Bishops, 9 June 1967, re: Jnstructio de cu/tu mys terii Eucharistici. 25 May 1967 see also Documents on the Liturgy, pl4 10. Annibale Bugnini, CM. was Secretary of the Concilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy from 1964-1969. 52Lit. '54. WCA: letter, Sneddon to George Dwyer. Archbishop of Binningham, 10 February, 1970. 53 Allan McClelland, 'Great Britain and Ireland', in Modern Catholicism. Vatican II and After , (ed) Adrian Hastings, (London. 1991 ), p.366. 42 [Our Father who art in heaven] or the ICEL translation [Our Father in heaven]. Apart from this crucial issue, everything was now in place and the new order of the Mass was ready to be implemented on November 29th 1970. This was the definitive text which signalled the end of the period of implementation, as Sneddon said 'experimentation ... over the last five years is now closed'. 54 But the reaction to the new Mass was only just beginning. In the Zealandia Brian Farmer, an Auckland priest who had been sent to Trier in Germany to study liturgy, wrote eight articles during October and November in preparation for the New Order of Mass. There were several important issues which had not been resolved by the Bishops like the instruction on Communion in the hand, which later in 197 4 was to cause enormous upheaval in the Church.SS The presence of the St Paul's group indicated a small but effective level of interest in liturgical development in New Zealand. The groups voluntary nature also reflected the contemporary attitude that liturgical development was not a major priority for the New Zealand Church. The action of John Kavanagh, Bishop of Dunedin, indicates that there was some fear of the liturgical movement, even among the hierarchy. The bishops were of course concerned with many issues apart from the liturgical changes. Issues such as the future development of the New Zealand Catholic school system and the new catechism took their attention. The role of Peter McKeefry in setting the overall tone of 'slowly, slowly' has shown itself to be a central factor in the implementation process. His attitude towards the National Liturgy Commission reflected both this general attitude towards change and his desire to keep control of the period. The bishops were men of their time, loyal functionaries of the hierarchy, where only Reginald Delargy and Brian Ashby stand out as men conversant with the changes. 54Tab/et, 30 September 1970, p. 3. 55Bishops Conference Minutes, WCA: 14-16 July 1969. re: Instruction memoria/e Domin issued 29 May 1969, 'led to agreement that no action should be take and no announcement made at this stage, regarding the suggestion for the reception of communion into the hand of the communicant.' 43 Chapter Three: From one day to the next. The Changes. What was it about the reforms which so confused the New Zealand Church? Here the general nature of the reforms, the changing role of the priest and the need for formation is discussed in greater detail. The Church's preparation for change began on 5 February 1964 when the Tablet [p6] published the first Instruction for the implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium under the title 'Pope Paul decre