Aurelio Porfiri
We must try to understand the relationship that has arisen between popular piety and liturgy from a different perspective than from which we are used to.
First of all, let us consider some obvious facts: popular piety has greatly diminished in recent decades, all the various ceremonies that were held in the past are reduced to little, while almost everything is traced back to the Mass. This would seem a “victory” of the Eucharistic celebration over popular piety but in reality I do not see it that way.
The function and relationship between Eucharistic liturgy and popular piety was well structured: the Mass represented the objective worship of the Church while popular piety gave vent to a more subjective religious sentiment. The objectivity of worship in the Mass was safeguarded and an opening was granted to an emotional dimension of the people that was forfeited where it might not have been harmful.
A push towards harmonization between liturgy and pious exercises also came from the Second Vatican Council which in Sacrosanctum Concilium (13) observed: “The pious exercises of the Christian people, provided they conform to the laws and norms of the Church, are strongly recommended, especially when they are carried out by mandate of the Apostolic See. Also those ‘sacred exercises’ of the particular Churches which are carried out at the disposal of the bishops, according to customs or legitimately approved books, enjoy special dignity. However, these exercises must be regulated taking into account the liturgical times and in such a way as to harmonize it with the liturgy; derive from it in some way and introduce the people to it, since the liturgy is by its very nature far superior to pious exercises.”
What is meant by popular piety? The Directory on Popular Piety and Liturgy defines it as follows: “The term ‘popular piety’ here designates the various cultural manifestations of a private or community nature which, in the context of the Christian faith, are mainly expressed not with the modules of the sacred Liturgy, but in the peculiar forms deriving from the genius of a people or an ethnic group and its culture.” That is, they had a more private character, we would say more subjective.
Now, what essentially distinguishes popular piety from official worship? Use of the vernacular, a more subjective dimension, a certain spontaneism. It is easy to observe that through the way in which the liturgical reform has been carried out, all these dimensions (and others) have invaded the official cult, so popular piety has not really disappeared but has practically invaded the official cult pulling it more and more in its direction. John Paul II in Vicesimus Quintus Annus said: “Both the pious exercises of the Christian people, as well as other forms of devotion, are welcomed and recommended as long as they do not replace or mix with liturgical celebrations.” But in reality it seems that this has happened.
We see it, for example, with what happened between liturgical music and devotional music and the way in which the latter has practically replaced the former. There would also be a long discourse on the notion of “people,” which had a meaning decades ago in the sense of a cohesive community, while today the “genius of the people” unfortunately is expressed only through the logic of commercial music and the cult of dominant narratives. If all of this was done knowingly thinking that it would benefit the faithful, it is certainly a bet on the wrong horse.
Follow
