NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

UMI"

nm u Ottawa L'Universitd canadienne Canada's university FACULTE DES ETUDES SUPERIEURES Isttl FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND ET POSTOCTORALES U Ottawa POSDOCTORAL STUDIES

L'UniversiuS canadienne Canada's university

Robert Ryan AUTEUR DE LA THESE / AUTHOR OF THESIS

Ph.D. (Canon Law) GRADE / DEGREE

Facultyof Canon Law >ACUTirECOLTDlPA^^^

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum on Abuses in the Celebration of the Eucharist Background, Analysis, Reception and Interpretation

TITRE DE LA THESE / TITLE OF THESIS

Dr. John Huels DIRECTEUR (DIRECTRICE) DE LA THESE / THESIS SUPERVISOR

EXAMINATEURS (EXAMINATRICES) DE LA THESE / THESIS EXAMINERS

Wojciech Kowal _ FrancisMorrisey

Kevin McKenna _ _Lynda Robitajlle

Gary W. Slater Le Doyen de la Faculte des etudes superieures et postdoctorales / Dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies THE 2004 INSTRUCTION REDEMPTIONS SACRAMENTUM ON ABUSES IN THE CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST: BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, RECEPTION AND INTERPRETATION

by Robert J. RYAN

A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Canon Law Saint Paul University, Ottawa, Canada, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Canon Law

Ottawa, Canada Saint Paul University 2009 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-60315-4 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-60315-4

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

1+1 Canada © Robert J. Ryan, Ottawa, Canada, 2009 Abstract

This work examines an Instruction on the Eucharist, Redemptionis Sacramentum, published by the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2004. This Instruction was mandated by Pope John Paul II in his 2003 encyclical letter on the Eucharist, Ecclesia de Eucharistia. In the first chapter, "The Remote History of the Instruction," the thesis considers how, from the time of the early Church, concern for the proper celebration of the Eucharist as well as the elimination of abuses in its celebration have been a characteristic of the Church's life and the object of legislation and supervision at various levels: the Apostolic See, Ecumenical Councils, local bishops and synods, and even those in political authority. Over time, this wide- ranging juridical authority over the liturgy narrowed considerably. The thesis examines the factors that gave rise to increasing centralization in the Apostolic See of authority over the liturgy, most notably in the centuries between the Council of Trent (1547-1563) and the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The latter Council restored to the bishops some measure of authority over the liturgy, but the Apostolic See retains ultimate control over the publication of the Latin liturgical books and the approval of their vernacular translations.

The second chapter, "The Proximate History of the Instruction," examines key theological, canonical, and pastoral issues on matters related to the Eucharist that were of particular concern to the Apostolic See during the period from the promulgation of a new Roman Missal in 1970 to Redemptionis Sacramentum in 2004. Among these were certain liturgical abuses occurring in various places which the Apostolic See sought to eradicate by its instructions and by promoting liturgical education and greater vigilance over the liturgy by local bishops.

The third chapter, "The Instruction Itself," first reviews doctrinal matters treated by Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia de Eucharistia that are foundational for understanding many of the disciplinary directives of Redemptionis Sacramentum. The latter text is then examined and analysed in depth, both on the matters of concern in earlier documents of the Apostolic See as well as the new discipline and novel features of this Instruction.

The final chapter, "Reception, Canonical Issues, Remedies," considers the reception of the Instruction in canonical scholarship and in the local churches as represented by statements and policies of various conferences of bishops and individual bishops. The author also examines the document from a technical-juridical perspective, in particular, the question of whether the text exceeds in some places the limits of instructions as they are defined in canon law. The thesis concludes with some suggestions, or remedies, to eliminate or at least reduce the incidence of the abuses proscribed by this Instruction. TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

1 — THE REMOTE HISTORY OF THE INSTRUCTION 9 1.1 — The Early Church 9 1.2 — The Middle Ages 17 1.3 — From Trent to Vatican II 30 1.3.1 — The Juridical Authority of the Congregation of Sacred Rites . 48 1.3.2 — The Obligatory Nature of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal ..51 1.3.3 — Reforms Leading to the Second Vatican Council 53 1.4 — Vatican II 57 1.5 — Implementation of the Constitution 66 1.6 — Preparation for the new Roman Missal 78 1.7 — Summary 81

2 — THE PROXIMATE HISTORY OF THE INSTRUCTION 82 2.1 — A New Roman Missal 83 2.2 — Doctrinal Concerns 88 2.3 — Clarifying Roles: Priesthood and Laity 99 2.4 — Preserving the Heart of the Eucharist: The Eucharistic Prayer 112 2.5 — Holy Communion 123 2.5.1 — Communion under Both Kinds 123 2.5.2 — Communion in the Hand 126 2.5.3 — Extraordinary Ministers of Communion 128 2.5.4 — Sacramental Sharing 132 2.5.5 — Special Cases 136 2.5.6 — The Proper Disposition 141 2.5.7 — Posture and Vessels 144 2.6 —Worship of the Eucharist outside Mass 146 2.7 — The Moderation of the Liturgy 155 2.7.1 — Moderation of the Liturgy in the 1983 Code 155 2.7.2 — Vigilance over the Liturgy by the Apostolic See 157 2.8 — Summary 170

3 — THE INSTRUCTION ITSELF 173 3.1 — The Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia 174 3.2 — Preparation of the Instruction 181 3.3 — The Preamble of the Instruction 186 3.4 — Matters Revisited 189

i 3.4.1 — Theological Concerns 190 3.4.2 — Differentiation of Roles 196 3.4.3 — The Eucharistic Prayer 209 3.4.4 _ The Communion Rite 213 3.4.5 — Worship of the Eucharist outside Mass 228 3.4.6 — Responsibility for the Moderation of the Liturgy 233 3.5 — Identifying and Reporting Abuses 241 3.5.1 — Graviora delicta 243 3.5.2 — Grave Matters 243 3.5.3 — Other Abuses 246 3.5.4 — Those Responsible for the Correction of Abuses . 246 3.5.5 — Reporting Abuses 248 3.6 — Summary 249

4 — RECEPTION, CANONICAL ISSUES, REMEDIES 251 4.1 — Reception of the Instruction 252 4.1.1 — The Canonical Doctrine of Reception 253 4.1.2 — The Reception of the Conciliar Liturgical Renewal 257 4.1.3 — The Reception of Redemptionis Sacramentum 267 4.2 — Canonical Problems with the Instruction 281 4.2.1 — The Juridical Nature of Instructions ( c. 34) 281 4.2.2 — Specific Canonical Observations 293 4.3 — Proposed Remedies to Abuses in the Celebration of the Eucharist .... 304 4.3.1 — Formation of Future Priests 305 4.3.2 — Ongoing Formation of Clergy and Other Liturgical Ministers 313 4.3.3 — Identification of Abuses in the Celebration of the Mass 316 4.4 — Summary 319

CONCLUSION 321

BIBLIOGRAPHY 328

n Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to all who have assisted me in completing this project.

Firstly, my gratitude is due to my ecclesiastical superiors, beginning with my Ordinary, the Most Rev. Martin Currie, Archbishop of St. John's, as also his predecessors, Archbishops Brendan O'Brien, James Macdonald and Alphonsus Penney, for their support and encouragement. They have been most fatherly and kind.

To the Most Rev. Luigi Ventura, Apostolic Nuncio to Canada, with whom I have been privileged to work these past three years, I extend my appreciation for both the opportunity to serve as a member of his staff as also his urging that I finish this work and affording me the time to do so. It has been an honour to work in close association with him, to see his love for Christ and the Church, as also his selfless and disinterested service to the Church in Canada in the name of the Apostolic See. To him and the Nunciature Staff, I am most grateful for their assistance and support.

Secondly, to the Dean and the Faculty of Canon Law at Saint Paul University, especially for the extension granted, I am grateful. I must thank also Fr. John Huels, my director, for his invaluable assistance, not to mention his great forbearance. Likewise, I thank Fr. Francis Morrisey for his advice as also for his friendship.

Thirdly, to my priest friends, those of my home Archdiocese of St. John's as well as the priests where I have been privileged to serve or with whom I have been acquainted in the Archdiocese of Ottawa and the Dioceses of Antigonish, Burlington (Vermont) and Pembroke, I am grateful for their friendship and encouragement.

Finally, I would like to thank the Pastor and parishioners of St. Michael's, Corkery, and St. Peter Celestine, Pakenham, for giving me, as also my dear mother, a home away from home and for the witness of their Christian faith as also their deep and abiding love for the Most Holy Eucharist.

To all, singly and severally, I offer my profound thanks with the assurance of a prayerful remembrance, especially in the Masses I offer.

iii Abbreviations

AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Rome: 1909-)

Annotated Code E. CAPARROS et al. (eds.), Code of Canon Law Annotated, 2nd ed. rev.

(Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur, 2004)

BCL Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy of the USCCB c. canon cc. canons

CCCB Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops CCEO Codex canonum Ecclesiarum orientalium (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1995); Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches: Latin-English Edition (Washington, CLSA, 2001)

CDF Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

CDWDS Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments

CLD Canon Law Digest

CLSA Canon Law Society of America

DOL Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1982)

DZ H. DENZINGER., Enchiridion Symbolorum: The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by R. J. DEFERRARI from the Thirtieth Edition, (Fitzwilliam, NH, Loreto Publications, 2004)

Eucharistic Eucharistic Documents for the New Millennium (Chicago, Liturgy Documents Training Publications, 2004)

Exegetical A. MARZOA, J. MlRAS, R. RODRIGUEZ-OCANA (eds) and E. Commentary CAPARROS (gen. ed. of English trans.), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur, 2004)

iv Flannery A. FLANNERY (gen. ed.), Vatican Council II, vol. 1: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, new rev. ed. (Northport, NY: Costello, 1996).

GIRM General Instruction of the Roman Missal

GIRM Commentary E. FOLEY, N.D. MITCHELL, and J.M. PIERCE (eds.), A Commentary on the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 2007)

LG VATICAN II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium

NDSW P. FINK (ed.), New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990)

Ratio SACRED CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION, Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis, January 6, 1970

RS CDWDS, Instruction on Certain Matters to Be Observed or Avoided Regarding the Eucharist, Redemptionis Sacramentum

SC VATICAN II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium

SST JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, April 30, 2001

Tanner N.P. TANNER (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V, original text by G. ALBERIGO et al.(London: Sheed & Ward and Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1990)

USCCB United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

v INTRODUCTION

On April 23, 2004, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the

Sacraments together with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presented the

Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum} This Instruction was intended as a disciplinary companion to the Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia? Among those who addressed the gathering at which the Instruction was presented were the prefect of the CDWDS, Cardinal Francis Arinze, and the secretaries of the two dicasteries responsible for its preparation, Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino, Secretary of the CDWDS, and

Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Cardinal Prefect explained the need for juridical norms to govern the Sacred

Liturgy, especially the Eucharistic celebration, as well as the fundamental importance of adherence to these norms. The Cardinal then gave a cursory overview of the document itself.

He concluded by noting that, in view of the doctrine on the Eucharist, the liturgical norms are not "meticulous rubrics dictated by legalistically bent minds" but deserve due attention; those entrusted with the celebration of the Eucharist, especially bishops and priests and those who by their ministry or by deputation are called upon to carry out definite functions in the course of its celebration, should discharge these various ministries "in faith and devotion."3

'CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS (=CDWDS), Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (=RS), March 25,2004, in AAS, 96 (2004), pp. 549-601; English translation in Eucharistic Documents for the New Millennium (=Eucharistic Documents), Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 2004, pp. 93-160. This same translation appears in Notitiae, 40 (2004), pp. 233-307 and is also available on the Vatican website.

2JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia (=EE), April 17,2003, in AAS, 95 (2003), pp. 433-475; English translation in Eucharistic Documents, pp. 1-46.

3 C ARDINAL FRANCIS ARINZE, "Presentation of the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum" April 23, 2004, in Notitiae, 40 (2004), pp. 111-116; English translation: www.vatican.va/ roman_ curia/ congregations/ ccdds/ documents/ rc_con_ccdds_doc_2, (May 31,2004). 2

Exploring the document further and commenting upon its significant characteristics,

Archbishop Sorrentino noted that the literary style of the Instruction is in discourse form which, even though containing disciplinary elements, preserves a certain quality of the contemplative. The Instruction does not simply repeat liturgical norms but seeks to treat them with greater depth.

Both in the Preamble and throughout, it concisely recalls the motives that give meaning to the norms. An image of the Eucharistic liturgy and of the corresponding body of norms that emerges from them can be summed up in the following three perspectives: as an expression of faith, an experience of the mystery and an experience of communion.4

As an expression of faith, the Instruction seeks to draw attention to the fact that the liturgy and, most importantly, the celebration of the Eucharist, is the privileged place where the Church confesses her faith in "a dialogue of love with her Lord."5 The liturgical rites are expressive of this dialogue and therefore affect not only a specific group of believers but the

Church itself. Since the celebration of the liturgy is intimately connected to doctrine, the use of unapproved texts or rites leads to the attenuation or disappearance of the vital link between prayer and doctrine. For this reason, nothing should be left to chance in the celebration of the liturgy; the liturgical norms must be observed.

As for the second perspective, the experience of mystery, Sorrentino noted that, besides their functional character, liturgical norms have a "soul," a spiritual significance that calls not only for their external observance but also an internal conformity. He described

"ARCHBISHOP DOMENICO SORRENTINO, "Intervention," April 23, 2004, in Notitiae, 40 (2004), p. 117; English translation: www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/ congregationis/ ccdds/ documents/ rc_con_2, (May 31, 2004).

'Ibid., Notitiae, pp. 117-118; Vatican website, pp. 1-2. 3 liturgical norms as the expression of the ecclesial conscience guided by the Holy Spirit, under the discernment and guidance of the pastors, and the means by which both the validity and dignity of the liturgical action is assured and Christ becomes present. The proper celebration of the Eucharist helps reveal the features of Christ as outlined in the Gospels and makes it possible for believers to share in something of the experience that the disciples had in the

Emmaus story. In this context, the liturgy is the path to the mystery, and liturgical norms are the signposts that enable the faithful to travel that path safely. The words and rites of the liturgy are a faithful expression, matured over the centuries, of the understanding and intentions of Christ. Sorrentino explained that the Instruction has, as its ultimate goal, a conformity of the understanding of the faithful with that of Christ as revealed in these very words and rites.6

A third dimension of the Instruction identified by Sorrentino is the experience of communion. Recalling how the mystery of the Church in conciliar documents reveals a hierarchically ordered community in which the fundamental equality of every baptized person is combined with the diversity of charisms and ministries, the liturgy, especially the

Eucharist, is the "epiphany of the Church in her unity and diversity." Hence, the Instruction insists on the exercise of legitimate authority in regulating the liturgy, especially in reference to the role of bishops who exercise that authority always in conjunction with the successor

of Peter. Likewise, the respective roles of priests, deacons, and the lay faithful are explained

with an emphasis upon the differences between the ordained and the laity.7

6Ibid., Notitiae, pp. 118-119; Vatican website, p. 2.

7Ibid., Notitiae, p. 119; Vatican website, pp. 2-3. 4

Sorrentino noted that this distinction cannot be understood from the logic of civil society since the liturgical community is itself the result of divine initiative. The Eucharist is a convocation in which God makes himself present and in which Christ acts in the Holy

Spirit through the ministerial vocations he has authoritatively established. Such distinctions must not obscure, however, the living and active participation of the laity in the liturgy, a duty and responsibility that arises from baptism. Furthermore, this communion makes it a right of the faithful to have dignified celebrations, to make known inadequacies or abuses, but this should always be done in truth and charity. "The liturgy cannot become a 'battle ground'."8

Sorrentino explained that the Instruction was far from being an innovation. He urged that it be received and read with attentiveness to its liturgical spirituality, thus making it a valuable antidote to abuses in the liturgy. He also noted that the Instruction would serve as a helpful preparation for the Synod on the Eucharist which would take place the following year. Furthermore, it would enable all to experience the Eucharist as the source and summit of the ecclesial life.9

At the same news conference, the Secretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Angelo Amato, also drew attention to some of the Instruction's pertinent theological characteristics as well as how the document should be received. As to the theological characteristics, Amato emphasized, firstly, the Instruction's insistence on the

8Ibid., Notitiae, pp. 119-120; Vatican website, p. 3.

9Ibid., Notitiae, p. 121; Vatican website, p. 4. 5 necessity for harmony between the lex orandi and the lex credendi and, secondly, the authentic ecclesiality of the Eucharist.10

As to the first, Archbishop Amato explained that the Instruction is a continuation of the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia which had presented high magisterial teaching on the

Eucharist as a mystery of faith that nourishes and edifies the Church. Amato recalled that

John Paul II had noted that shadows and abuses have the effect of obscuring the authentic faith and doctrine on the Eucharist and the Archbishop further elaborated:

An arbitrary application of the liturgy not only deforms the celebration but provokes doctrinal uncertainty, perplexity and scandal in the People of God. In reality the abuses, more than an expression of liberty, manifest instead a superficial knowledge or even ignorance of the great biblical and ecclesial tradition relative to the Eucharist. The Instruction instead intends to promote the true liberty which is doing what is right and just in the celebration of this Sacrament.11

The Archbishop reminded everyone that the liturgy is intrinsically connected with doctrine. The use of unapproved texts and rituals leads to "the inevitable weakening and the loss of the necessary bond between the lex orandi and the lex credendi." In this context, the

Archbishop expressed an important principle of the Instruction: "Due to this intrinsic bond between profession and the celebration of the faith, the faithful have the right to demand from their pastors that it be celebrated for them in an integral way, the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass in full conformity with the doctrine of the Magisterium of the Church."12

10ARCHBISHOP ANGELO AMATO, "Intervention", April 23,2004, in Notitiae, 40 (2004), pp. 122-126; English translation through the kindness of the staff of the Apostolic Nunciature in Ottawa.

nIbid., Notitiae, p. 122.

12Ibid., pp. 123-124. 6

As to the second theological principle, the authentic ecclesiality of the Eucharist,

Archbishop Amato recalled the words of John Paul II in his encyclical Ecclesia de

Eucharistia when he appealed for fidelity to the liturgical norms since they constitute, in the words of the Pope, "a concrete expression of the authentic ecclesiality of the Eucharist." The liturgy is no one's own property, neither that of the celebrant nor the assembly. This ecclesiality is not simply an ideal but a concrete expression in the life of every praying community.

Archbishop Amato noted that the publication of the Instruction is itself something of an ecclesial event. "It follows that the welcoming of the Instruction should not end at the immediate news that communicates and informs but has to become an ecclesial event of communion and formation."13 He urged that bishops, clergy and lay faithful should not be satisfied simply with the immediate opinions expressed in prima battuta, but they should

"have the patience of taking the time to read, assimilate and live in depth the contents of the

Instruction." He expressed the hope that the Instruction would elicit within the Church "a healthy curiosity and a generous welcome to contemplate with renewed amazement this great mystery of our faith and encourage appropriate Eucharistic behaviours and attitudes."14

It is with this sense of "healthy curiosity" that we shall endeavour to study the

Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum. We shall approach the Instruction from four perspectives. In the first chapter, we shall treat the history of the moderation of the Sacred

Liturgy, especially the Eucharist, from the very beginnings of the Church until the Second

13Ibid., p. 125.

14Ibid., pp. 125-126. 7

Vatican Council and post-conciliar reforms. We shall treat this history with special reference

to matters that are addressed in the Instruction, considering how these were dealt with in the

Church's history. This is the "remote history" of the Instruction.

In the second chapter, we shall consider the antecedents to this Instruction in the

period following the promulgation of the new Missal of Pope Paul VI in 1969. Many of the

concerns raised in Redemptionis Sacramentum had already been addressed on numerous

occasions both in the pontificate of Paul VI and also during the lengthy and historic

pontificate of John Paul H This is what we shall call the "proximate history" of the

Instruction.

In the third chapter, we shall first treat the immediate background to Redemptionis

Sacramentum, including a consideration of certain themes in the Encyclical Letter Ecclesia

de Eucharistia. The major thrust of the chapter is the study of the Instruction itself, with a

commentary on its norms and an assessment of its contributions as well as an indication of

certain problems with it.

In the fourth chapter we shall consider the reception of the document, the responses

to it of various groups, especially conferences of bishops and learned authors and

commentators. We shall then endeavour to address a number of the canonical issues and

problems raised by this Instruction and propose, in conclusion, some modest remedies that

might contribute to a more effective identification and elimination of abuses in the

celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy and also in Eucharistic worship outside Mass.

It is the hope that this study might assist in contributing to an appreciation of the

profound values inherent in liturgical norms which exist to serve the Church in fulfilling one 8 of her most important of works, the offering of authentic and fitting worship to God, the

sanctification of her members and the strengthening thereby of her mission of salvation to the world. CHAPTER I

THE REMOTE HISTORY OF THE INSTRUCTION

Introduction

Throughout the history of the Church, the importance of the Eucharist for the life of the Church manifests itself in the care and concern with which various levels of authority sought to guide and moderate its celebration, as also its worship outside of Mass. This concern was expressed from the very beginnings: in the New Testament, in the writings of the fathers of the Church, in the declarations and canons of ecumenical councils and local synods as also the ministry of individual bishops. At times it was even the object of interest on the part of those with political authority. With the passage of time, a greater concentration of authority and responsibility would come to be exercised by the Apostolic See, a process that reflected as much the desire on the part of the faithful to be in closer union with the See of Peter and its liturgical practices than the consequence of what might be described as an encroachment on the part of centralized authority upon the legitimate customs and traditions of particular churches. In this chapter we shall endeavour to consider some of the more

significant events in this process, especially as they relate to the matters treated in the

Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum.

1.1 The Early Church

The fitting and worthy celebration of the Eucharist as well as the correction of abuses

has been a perennial concern of the life of the Church from the very beginning. It was one of 10 the matters addressed by St. Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians.1 According to one commentary, Paul confronted liturgical abuses taking place at the time of the Lord's Supper within the Church at Corinth. The members of this Church would gather for a common meal before the celebration of the Eucharist but, instead of fostering fellowship, it had become the source of disunity between different social classes, extending into the very liturgy itself. This had the effect of contradicting the very meaning of the Eucharist, which had among its objects to unify the believers to Christ and to one another.2 St. Paul writes:

For in the first place, when you assemble as a Church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you meet together, it is not the Lord's Supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the Church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not (1 Cor 11: 17-22).3

It was clear that such divisions threatened the unity of the Church, wreaking havoc

on the fraternal spirit that should have characterized their life in Christ, a fraternity and unity

that should have been especially manifest when the Corinthian Church gathered for worship!4

'It is generally believed that this letter was written around the years 56-58 A.D. and therefore represents a very early stage in the life of the Church, in its most primitive development. See The Collegeville Bible Commentary: The New Testament, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1992, p. 1100.

2Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The First and Second Letters of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2004, p. 33.

3In this paper, all scriptural quotations are from The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2006.

4As RS notes, abuses in the liturgy have the effect of causing disunity and division within the Church. As no. 11 of the Instruction states: "In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the people of God." 11

Paul then proceeded to give what is considered the earliest and most detailed account of the institution of the Eucharist:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the chalice, after supper saying, "This chalice is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread, and drink this chalice, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes (1 Cor 11:23-27).

St. Paul urges the Corinthians to examine themselves before celebrating the Lord's Supper so as not to receive the Eucharist to their condemnation.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself (1 Cor 11:23-27).

In these passages we have the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine concerning the

Eucharist. According to one author:

It connects the Eucharist very closely with the passion. A new and permanent covenant and alliance is concluded between God and man in the blood of Jesus. His sacrifice was mystically anticipated in the Last Supper. The command to commemorate is given to the apostles and implicitly to their successors, to celebrate the Eucharist in his memory; and this remembrance is of such efficacy that it is an unceasing proclamation of his redemptive death, and in a certain manner, renders it actually present until the day when Christ returns in the full glory of his second coming. Finally, great purity of soul is required to take part in a rite as sacred as the reception of the body and blood of the Lord.5

5 F. AMIOT, The History of the Mass, translated from French by L. C. SHEPHERD, New York, Hawthorn Books, 1959, pp. 11-12. The theological meaning of the Eucharist is not exclusively limited to the Institution Narratives nor even to explicitly Eucharistic texts within the New Testament but finds expression within each Gospel, as also in the theology of St. Paul, the Letter to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. See R. KERESZTY, Wedding Feast of the Lamb: Eucharistic Theology from a Historical, Biblical and Systematic Perspective, Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications and the Liturgical Institute at the University of Saint Mary of the Lake, 2004. For example, as Kereszty notes: "Both the book of Revelation and tiie letter to the Hebrews highlight the eschatological dimension of the Eucharist; yet, while in Hebrews the predominant theme is to approach (proserchesthai) God or enter heaven through Jesus Christ, in Revelation it is the coming 12

Attentiveness to the proper celebration of the Sacred Liturgy as well as a treatment of its different parts can be found throughout the New Testament. There are references to sacred books (1 Tim 4:13; 1 Thess5:27; Col 4:15); psalms andhymns (1 Cor 4:26; Col 3:16;

Eph 5:19); intercessory prayers for all classes of people (1 Tim 2:1-3); the kiss of peace (1

Cor 16:20); an offering for those in need (Rom 15:26,2 Cor 9:13); as well as concern for the appropriate role and dress of women and men in worship (1 Cor 11:4-5). We can also find actual formulae drawn from liturgical celebrations (Rom 16:27, Gal 1:15,1 Tim 1:17, Heb

13:21, 1 Peter 1:11, Rev 1:6), and even short hymns (Rom 8:11-12, Eph 5:14, 1 Tim 3:16,

2 Tim 2:11-13). Furthermore, within the Acts of the Apostles we find a description of the communal life within the primitive Church as well as an ordering of gathering: "And they held steadfastly to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers" (Acts 2:42). The liturgical scholar Adrian Fortescue, summing up this evidence from the New Testament wrote: "So we have already in the New Testament all the essential elements that we find later in organized liturgies: lessons, psalms, hymns, sermons, consecration and communion."6

From an early period, the Rite of Mass developed into two distinct parts: a

Christianized synagogue service of prayers, readings and a sermon followed by the Christian

(erchesthai) of the pierced Son of Man to us in history who at the end of history prevails. In the first it is through the Eucharist that we transcend history and enter the heavenly sanctuary. In the second it is through the Eucharist that Christ comes to us in history, and his coming reveals both the mystery of history and its consummation. In both works Christian morality centers upon and derives from the Eucharist. Those who by their grave sins are excluded from the assembly have no longer the blood of Christ's sacrifice to save them" (p. 88).

6A. FORTESCUE, art. "Liturgy" in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9, New York, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., 1913, p. 307. 13 mystery, presided over by the Bishop. And although there was a certain degree of ex tempore prayer, the major elements of the Eucharist already acquired fixed forms at the heart of which was the Institution Narrative.7 Furthermore, by joining the Pauline account together with those found in the three synoptic gospels, we find the essential parts of the Eucharistic

Liturgy: 1) bread and wine are brought to the altar; 2) the celebrant gives thanks; 3) he takes the bread and wine and blesses them, saying the words of consecration; 4) the consecrated bread and wine, having become the Body and Blood of Christ, are distributed to the people in communion.8

That this pattern forms the basis of all the ancient rites can also be found in one of the more primitive descriptions of the Sunday Eucharist, that presented by Justin Martyr (d. 164

A.D.). All the elements of the Eucharistic Liturgy can be discerned in his account: 1) readings from the Old Testament and the writings of the apostles; 2) a sermon or discourse; 3) prayers and intercession; 4) the kiss of peace; 5) the Eucharistic Prayer; 6) the administration of the

Holy Gifts; 7) a collection for the poor.9

7A. FORTESCUE, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1912, pp. 5-7.

8These four actions constitute what the Anglican liturgical scholar Gregory Dix described in a book by the same title, The Shape of the Liturgy, in which the essential parts of the Eucharistic Liturgy as found in the Institution narratives can be found in every subsequent Rite. Dix wrote: "The last supper of Our Lord with his disciples is the source of the liturgical Eucharist, but not the model for its performance... In that form and in that order these four actions constituted the absolutely invariable nucleus of every Eucharistic rite known to us throughout antiquity from the Euphrates to Gaul." See G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy: New Edition, London, Continuum, 2005, p. 48.

9E. KlLMARTlN, The Eucharist in the Primitive Church, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall Inc., 1965, pp. 148-149. 14

This period within the history of the early Church, like every age, was not without its tensions, and these were brought to bear in one way or another upon the Church's worship, especially the celebration of the Eucharist. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107

A.D.), in a series of letters to the Churches of Asia Minor, wrote of the importance of the bishop as president of the Eucharist from which the Church receives its unity in Christ: "Be zealous, then, in the observance of the one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus

Christ, and one chalice that brings union in His blood. There is one altar, as there is one bishop with the priests and deacons, who are my fellow workers. And so, whatever you do, let it be done in the name of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians).10

In fact, St. Ignatius refers to the Eucharist in all but one of his letters, using

Eucharistic vocabulary, including the term "Eucharist" as well as "the altar of Eucharistic sacrifice." Ignatius sees the Eucharist as a sign and guarantor of Church unity as well as a symbol of his own personal sacrifice as a witness and martyr for Christ.11

Another matter of concern was the careful and reverent handling of the Eucharistic species. St. Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235 A.D.) urged his flock to treat the Eucharist with the greatest of attention and care, "for it is the body of Christ and every believer who eats of it

should not be careless about it."12

w The Apostolic Fathers, translated by F.X. GLIMM, J.M.F. MARIQUE, and G.G. WALSH, New York, CIMA Publishing, 1947, p. 114.

UE. LAVERDIERE, The Eucharist in the New Testament and the Early Church, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1996, p. 152.

12H. ATTRIDGE (ed.), The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, by P. BRADSHAW, M. JOHNSON, and L. PHILLIPS, Minneapolis, WI, Fortress Press, 2002, p. 182. Hippolytus addresses other matters related to the Eucharistic Liturgy such as the roles of bishop, presbyter and deacon in the distribution of Holy Communion (pp. 136-137), and the Eucharistic fast (pp. 180-181). 15

The Didascalia Apostolorum, a manual of Church order containing moral, liturgical and ascetical instructions and believed to have been composed in Syria around the years 200 -

250 A.D., provided extensive guidance on the celebration of the liturgy, the proper social order to be observed as well as the importance of making room for the poor. Among other things, it advises:

When you call an assembly of the Church, conduct your meetings in an exemplary way. Set places for the brethren with all due care and decency. Keep a place for the priests in the east end of the house. In the middle let the bishop's throne be placed, and on each side of him let the priests sit down... Pray facing the east, for it is written: Give thanks to God who rides on the eastern side of the highest heavens.13

In the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, there was concern to reserve the distribution of the Eucharist to the baptized as also the necessity of receiving with proper dispositions:

But let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those baptized in the name of the Lord, for it was in reference to this that the Lord said: 'Do not give that which is holy to dogs' ... And on the Lord's Day, after you have come together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, having first confessed your offences, so that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbour join you until he is reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled.14

One of the more serious of challenges that confronted the early Church at this stage had to do with admitting or prohibiting people who had apostatized from receiving the

Sacraments. Periodic outbreaks of persecution had the effect of disrupting Church life and exerted tremendous pressures upon Christian communities and their members. The followers of the Roman presbyter Novatian, taking a rigorous approach, refused to admit back into

13 M. AQUILINA, The Mass of the Early Christians, Huntington, IN, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2001, pp. 112-113.

The Apostolic Fathers, pp. 179, 182. 16 communion those who had lapsed under the persecution of the emperor Decius (249-251

A.D.).15

Both the New Testament and early Christian writings also indicate an ongoing concern to safeguard the Eucharist from profanation. This is expressed in the very titles employed to describe the Eucharistic Liturgy, including the use of pseudonyms such as the

"Breaking of Bread" which we find in Acts 2:42, or the admonition from the Letter of the

Hebrews to reserve the teaching about these mysteries to the mature (Heb. 6). The Fourth

Gospel does not even provide such a narrative as we find in the synoptics, offering an allegory of the event in the foot washing (John 13: 1-12). The Institution Narrative as found in the Gospel of St. Luke, according to one author, contains references "so cryptic as to be barely intelligible."16 Thus, even a certain obscurity about early Christian worship reflects the concern of the first pastors of the Church to protect the Eucharist from irreverence and profanation.17

In addition to concern for the actual celebration of the Eucharist in this early period of the Church's history, there is an awareness of the importance of the continued presence

15R. McBRIEN (ed.), The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, New York, Harper Collins, 1995, p. 992. The question of admission to the reception of Holy Communion is addressed in RS, including the necessary dispositions (nn. 80-83) as well as the question of the administration of the Eucharist to non-Catholics (nn. 84-85).

16A. NICHOLS, The Holy Eucharist: From the New Testament to Pope John Paul II, Dublin, Veritas, 1991, p. 33.

"Similar concerns are addressed in the InstructionRedemptionis Sacramentum. Communion is not to be given in the hand if there is danger of profanation (RS, no. 92). The diocesan bishop is not to give permission for reservation if there is the danger of profanation (RS, no. 132). And among the most serious of abuses, referred to as one of the graviora delicto, are those having to do with the profanation of the Eucharistic species (RS, nn. 132 and 172). 17 of Christ in the Eucharist after the celebration. St. Justin Martyr described the outline of the

Sunday Eucharist and explains that the deacons carried the food, over which thanks had been prayed, to those absent from the celebration. Furthermore, he explains:

We call this food the Eucharist, of which only he can partake who has acknowledged the truth of our teachings, who has been cleansed by baptism for the remission of his sins and for his regeneration, and who regulates his life upon the principles laid down by Christ. Not as ordinary bread or as ordinary drink do we partake of them, but just as, through the word of God, our Saviour Jesus Christ became Incarnate and took upon Himself flesh and blood for our salvation, so, we have been taught, the food which has been made the Eucharist by the prayer of His word, and which nourishes our flesh and blood by assimilation, is both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.18

1.2 The Middle Ages

In the period that followed the persecutions, the development of liturgical rites tended to follow those episcopal sees that emerged as patriarchal. Three of the "parent" rites derived from the patriarchal cities of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. A fourth, the Gallican Rite, developed in the West and is believed to have been influenced by the liturgical tradition of

Antioch. Nevertheless, although the Pope was Patriarch of the West, much of Western

Europe did not use the Roman Rite. Northern Italy with its centre in the See of St. Ambrose in Milan, as also Gaul, Germany, Spain, Britain and Ireland, all had their own liturgies which it is believed were modifications of the Gallican Rite, subject to local variations and adaptations.19

l&Saint Justin Martyr. The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, the Monarchy or The Rule of God, translated by T.B. FALLS, Washington, Catholic University of America Press, 1948, pp. 105-106.

'FORTESCUE, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, pp. 107-109. 18

Concern for liturgical matters was not exclusively the domain of patriarchal or particular churches, or of purely local concern. Even at the highest level, liturgical discipline and the right ordering of the Sacred Liturgy was the object of attention. At the First

Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), those who gathered, in addition to addressing weighty theological matters, chose also to emphasize the importance of Viaticum, the posture of prayer (especially on Sundays and during Pentecost) and the seating and communion of deacons during the Eucharistic Liturgy. Canon 18 reminded the deacons that they were "the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters" and that they were to receive the

Eucharist from the hands of the bishop after the presbyters according to their Order, and they were not to sit among the presbyters.20

In the early Middle Ages the Roman See tended to play a modest role in the moderation of the liturgy and in the liturgical life of the churches of the West, manifesting both a genuine respect for and a willingness to integrate and adapt the practices customary in these churches. This approach is well expressed in the advice given by Gregory the Great

(590-604) to Augustine of Canterbury as the latter embarked upon his mission to the English.

According to the Venerable Bede, Gregory advises:

My brother, you are familiar with the usage of the Roman Church in which you were brought up. But if you have found customs, whether in the Church of Rome or of Gaul or any other that may be more acceptable to God, I wish you to make a careful selection of them, and teach the Church of the English which is still young

20FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NICAEA, Canons, in N.P. TANNER (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V, original text by G. ALBERIGO et al., London, Sheed & Ward and Washington, Georgetown University Press, 1990, pp. 14-16. 19 in the Faith, whatever you have been able to learn with profit from the various churches.21

In this developing history of the moderation of the liturgy, it appears that, in this period, far from imposing liturgical practices upon the West, Rome tended to be receptive rather than innovative. When Charlemagne sought to adopt the liturgical praxis of the Church of Rome, he asked for copies of Roman Sacramentaries that could be transcribed for use both within his chapel at Aachen as well as throughout the Frankish territories. The result was a process of "gallicanization" of the Roman liturgical books. In his work, The Genius of the

Roman Rite, the liturgical scholar Edmund Bishop described how the twin geniuses of the

Roman Rite, soberness and sense, gave way to some of the more elaborate elements in the

Gallican and Mozarabic rites, elements that would be eventually adopted by the Romans themselves and incorporated into the Roman liturgical books. Bishop observed:

What is considered most picturesque or attractive or devout, or affective - in a word, what is most "interesting," as the saying is, in the services of our religion, just those things indeed which in the popular mind are considered distinctive of "Romanism" and which go to make up, in the main, what some people call the "sensuousness" of Roman Catholic "ritual." From precisely that element in it which is not originally Roman at all, but has been gradually borrowed, imported, adopted, in the course of ages.22

One example of such adaptation was the inclusion of the Nicene Creed which had

been formulated at the first of the Ecumenical Councils. The Nicene Creed was first inserted

into the liturgy of the East around 589. Eventually the Spanish Visogoths adopted it, reciting

it before the Lord's Prayer. Charlemagne ordered it to be sung in its present position, at the

21THE VENERABLE BEDE, A History of the English Church and People, Harmondsworth, Penguin Press, 1983, p. 73.

22E. BISHOP, "The Genius of the Roman Rite," in Liturgical Historica: Papers on the Liturgy and Religious Life of the Western Church, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1918, p. 12. 20 conclusion of the Liturgy of the Word, at his chapel at Aachen as a protest against the doctrinal errors of Spanish bishops concerning the Incarnation. It was not adopted in Rome until 1014 and then only on Sundays and feasts. The genuflection at the Et incarnatus est

originated in the eleventh century.23

This is not to suggest that there was no liturgical development in Rome. The

evolution of the liturgical books, especially the Leonine, Gelasian and Gregorian

Sacramentaries, are important sources and provide the basic and essential core of the Roman

Rite, including the Roman Canon.24 Likewise, the Ordines Romani, of which the first

23The explanation for this late inclusion of the Creed was that, as the Church of Rome had never been stained by heresy, such a safeguard was unnecessary. In his treatment of this matter, Archdale King, jumping ahead to many centuries later, quotes from the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus of July 18, 1870 which declared "quia in Sede Apostolica immaculata est semper catholica reservata religio, et sancta celebrata doctrina." See A KING, Notes on the Catholic Liturgies, London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1930, pp. 32-33. RS, no. 69 declares: "In Holy Mass as well as in other celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy, no Creed or Profession of Faith is to be introduced which is not found in the duly approved liturgical books."

24It was the Gregorian Sacramentary that was sent to Charlemagne between the years 781 and 791. In the process of transcription, the Carolingian editor, while manifesting a profound respect for the Sacramentary received from Rome, made his own adaptations. This process is described by Fernand Cabrol in his work, The Mass of the Western Rites. He notes that, on the one hand, the Apostolic See sent out its books to be transcribed. By the time these returned, they had incorporated new feasts, rites, formulae and customs from the particular churches, and these in turn were sent out as examples of the Roman Rite and the usage of the Apostolic See, a process far more complex than described, and taking place over a long period of time. See F. CABROL, The Mass of the Western Rites, London, Sands & Co., 1934, pp. 182-183. This process is also briefly described in A.G. MARTIMORT (ed.), The Church at Prayer: Introduction to the Liturgy, Shannon, Irish University Press, 1968, p. 36-37. A treatment of the process is also given in A. KING, Liturgy of the Roman Church, London, Longmans, Green, 1957, pp. 31-36. King suggests another possible reason for the reception of the Frankish additions to the liturgical books: "The acceptance by Rome of the Carolingian Mass was largely due to the influence of the emperors, who since the time of Otto the Great (d. 973) had come to exercise an ever-increasing control in the affairs of Rome and Italy." Similarly, C. Vogel suggests a number of motivations, both religious and secular: "Well before the official efforts of Pepin III, the Romanization process had been initiated by Frankish clerics and fervent pilgrims to Rome who admired the liturgy they experienced there... Besides the real veneration felt by Pepin and Charlemagne for all things Roman, there were excellent political reasons in favor of Romanization. Liturgical unification would both foster unity within the Kingdom 21 originate from about the time of the pontificate of Pope Stephen III (768-722), offered descriptions of how the Rite of Mass was to be celebrated.25

In the period of the Gregorian Reforms, some of the popes sought to establish the

Roman Liturgy throughout the West, including places like Spain, thus leading to the virtual elimination of the Mozarabic Rite. Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) wrote the kings of Aragon,

Castile and Navarre, reminding them of the right of the papacy to direct Divine Worship with the result of establishing the Roman Liturgy throughout the West.26

A significant development that would lead to the dominance of the Roman Rite was the appearance of missals which brought together in one volume a number of liturgical books including sacramentaries and lectionaries. This was facilitated by the fact that many of the mendicant orders, in their journeys throughout Europe, adopted the missal due to its compact nature and convenience. According to Theodor Klauser:

Through the agency of the Franciscan itinerant preachers, these serviceable editions, principally the Missale and the Breviarium of the Roman Curia, became well known, were received with respect, and as is only natural, were copied everywhere in the world of that time. Thanks to the disciples of Saint Francis, therefore, the Western Liturgy received a measure of unification which was not merely a theoretical or legislative unification, but one which was carried out in practice. To a great extent it was thanks to the Franciscan Order that the Western world was prepared in the age of printing for a short codified form of the Roman Liturgy which was to be binding on all, a Liturgy moreover which on the whole was readily accepted.27

and help consolidate the alliance between the Holy See and the Frankish monarchy, the protector of the iustitia sancti Petri." See C. VOGEL, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, Washington, Pastoral Press, 1986, pp. 149-150.

25A. FORTESCUE, art. "Liturgical Books," in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9, pp. 296-300.

26CABROL, The Mass of the Western Rites, p. 183.

27 T. KLAUSER, Short History of the Western Liturgy, translated by J. HALLIBURTON, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 95. 22

And yet, even these missals would undergo adaptations and variations. A number of derivatives of the Roman Rite would develop in the different regions as well as among the different religious communities throughout Europe. As Alcuin Reid notes:

That liturgical development in this period tended toward a unity if not uniformity of rite is true. But we ought not to fall into the revisionist error of imagining a complete "Roman whitewash" of the Western liturgy: diversity continued within the embrace of this unity. Another mendicant Order, the Dominicans, carried with them their own Liturgy. Other Orders maintained distinctive rites. Local Churches (Milan, Lyons, Braga, Toledo, and so on, as well as the major English medieval centres: Salisbury, Hereford, York, Bangor and Lincoln) cherished their own liturgies, and even those dioceses that adopted the Roman rite freely incorporated their own particular feasts and customs. In this the local bishop demonstrated his legitimate "independence in liturgical matters" which stretched "right back to the early Church." Yet each belonged to the Roman liturgical family.28

It would be accurate to say that the celebration of the Mass in the period leading to the Reformation varied greatly from city to city, region to region, religious order to religious order. Even churches of particular significance had their own formularies.29 So while the

Apostolic See, through the spread of missals, had a greater influence on the development and celebration of the liturgy, "There was no thought in the Middle Ages that liturgical books had to be issued by the Holy See."30 Furthermore, the liturgy was regulated as much by custom as by formal legislation. John Huels observes:

28A. REID, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2005, p. 29. The quotations in this passage are drawn from p. 118 of the already cited work of Theodor Klauser, Short History of the Western Liturgy.

29Westminster Abbey had a Missal ad usum ecclesie Westmonasteriensis which included rites peculiar to the Abbey such as the Coronation Ceremonies as well as its own sanctoral cycle with feasts unique to the Abbey such as the Translation of St. Edward. Towards the end of the 19* century, the Henry Bradshaw Society of Great Britain published copies of this as well as other medieval missals and formularies with the aforementioned reprinted in 1999.

30J. HUELS, Liturgy and Law: Liturgical Law in the System of Roman Catholic Canon Law, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur Ltee, 2006, p. 33. 23

For the greater part of the Church's history, the liturgy was regulated much more by custom than by law. Custom, which has the same force in canon law as legislation, is the continued practice of the community over a long period of time. While the positive development and consolidation of the liturgies of both East and West occurred by the formation of customs, liturgical legislation enacted by councils, popes, civil rulers, and local bishops mainly sought to eradicate abuses and impose uniformity when differences were disputed. Law strove for stability, not innovation.... The liturgies of the Church evolved through the practices of communities being introduced or borrowed, taking root, and enduring over time-the dynamic of custom formation. This is not to say that the role of legislation was nonexistent; the collections of canon law throughout the centuries reveal considerable attention given to matters of liturgical and sacramental discipline. The role of law, however, was more a conservative force: condemning abuses, insisting on some common observances thought to be traditional, or declaring the normative practice in the face of conflict over differences. The law insisted on the observance of the received tradition, as it was perceived to be in a given time and place.31

31Ibid., pp. 32-34. Huels also notes that, even though there were tendencies to centralize as in the case of Pope Gregory VII and the Mozarabic liturgy, "Still, individual bishops in their dioceses did not lose their own authority over the liturgy, and they remained free to observe their own liturgical books, to add to them, or to amend them." The legacy of the Gregorian Reforms especially when it came to the liturgy is ambiguous. Even though Gregory was willing to admit of variations in the Sacred liturgy such as those of Milan and Benevento, such was not the case with the Mozarabic rite of Spain. This must be situated within his efforts to integrate Spain into the rest of Western Europe including his attempt to extend papal authority over worship in the local churches outside of the ecclesiastical province of Rome with the result that it led to a process whereby the liturgical Ordo Romanus (governing the celebration of the liturgy in the papal household) became the legal precedent by which all liturgical practices were to be judged. According to one author: "... the Gregorian reform held that the 'Roman Rite' creates a legal and doctrinal norma non normata form which there can be neither variance nor appeal, and hence, any deviation from the Roman liturgy constitutes a virtual deviation from dogma (and so is tantamount to heresy). To employ any other rite in the liturgy is to risk heterodoxy - or, at the least, schismatic idiosyncrasy... More important, however, was the way the Gregorian liturgical reform was later interpreted in the West. 'Since the later sixteenth century the prevailing view has been that the pontificate of Gregory VII represents a new departure in the liturgical history of the Western Church.' Intentionally or not, Gregory's claims against Spain put into play a principle which held that the Roman Rite enjoys preemptive legal status that undercuts the liceity and legitimacy of any other liturgy in the Latin West... As a result of the Gregorian reform, exclusive papal authority over liturgy in the Latin West had been boldly asserted as a matter of law, if not everywhere established as a matter of fact. In principle, at least, the Roman church's legal right to insist on liturgical uniformity - even outside its ecclesiastical province - had been set in motion." See N. MITCHELL and J. BALDOVIN, "Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani and the Class of Liturgical Documents to Which It Belongs," in A Commentary on the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (= GIRM Commentary), Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 2007, pp. 14-17. 24

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) addressed doctrinal matters regarding the

Eucharist in its Decree on the Catholic Faith. Among these matters were the real presence

"truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the form of bread and wine" as well as the declaration that "Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors."32 At the same time, as to the manner of its celebration, the Council turned to the bishops, directing them to make provision for people living under their jurisdiction accustomed to celebrating the liturgy according to the practices of their particular region or area. The Council declared:

Since in many places peoples of different languages live within the same city of a diocese, having one faith but different rites and customs, we therefore strictly order bishops of such cities and dioceses to provide suitable men who will do the following in the various rites and languages: celebrate the divine services for them, administer the church's sacraments and instruct them by word and example.33

The same Council directed that both the Sacred Chrism and the Eucharist be carefully reserved, enjoining those responsible to ensure their safety and prescribing penalties for their negligence in these matters:

We decree that the chrism and the eucharist are to be kept locked away in a safe place in all churches, so that no audacious hand can reach them to do anything

32FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, "Constitutions, no. 1, Decree on the Catholic Faith," in TANNER (ed.), The Councils of the Church, vol. 1, p. 230. The Council met in November of the year 1215 and the decrees were read out on November 30th. The insistence of the necessity of a validly ordained priest for the celebration of the Eucharist is reaffirmed in RS, no. 146: "There can be no substitute whatsoever for the ministerial Priesthood.... For the only minister who confects the sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest."

"FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, "Constitutions, no. 9, On Different Rites within the Same Faith," in TANNER (ed.), The Councils of the Church, vol. 1, p. 239. In numerous places through RS, the role of the diocesan bishop to moderate and direct the liturgical life of the faithful entrusted to his care is repeated and reaffirmed. 25 horrible or impious. If he who is responsible for their safe-keeping leaves them around carelessly, let him be suspended from office for three months; if anything unspeakable happens on account of his carelessness, let him be subject to graver punishment.34

No treatment of the moderation of the liturgy in the West in this period would be complete without reference to the growth and extension of the Eucharistic cult throughout

Western Europe, including the institution of the Feast of Corpus Christi as well as the development of various attendant rites and devotions. We see in this development the dynamic interplay whereby custom and local practices would have, over a period of time, an influence on the entire Church in the West and how these practices and customs would eventually receive the approbation of the Apostolic See.

The growth in Eucharistic piety began as a grassroots movement, extending gradually throughout the Western Church. In her book, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval

Culture, Muri Rubin, a lecturer in Medieval history at the University of Oxford, documents how this most important of liturgical innovations of the Medieval period spread rapidly, its diffusion encouraged by local bishops and scholars even before imposition by Rome. Rubin describes some of the legislation enacted by various dioceses as part of the spread of

Eucharistic adoration, the introduction of new rituals within the Rite of Mass itself, as well

as devotional practices outside of the Mass.

Among the aspects of liturgical discipline addressed by local legislation and described

by Rubin are the sacramental matter for the Eucharist. A manual for parish priests from

34 F0URTH LATERAN COUNCIL, "Constitutions, no. 20, On Keeping the Chrism and the Eucharist under Lock and Key," in TANNER (ed.), The Councils of the Church, vol. 1., p. 244. RS addresses the reservation of the Eucharist in nn. 129-133 with particular emphasis on avoiding the danger of profanation and renewing the legislation on the penalties attached for the most grave and serious of delicts related to such profanation (no. 172). 26 around the year 1333 stipulated that only wheat was to be used in the preparation of the host.

The Bishop of Worcester decreed that the most diligent care was to be taken in preparing and baking the bread to be used for the Mass. Other bishops stipulated how the Eucharist was to be reserved (from hanging pyxes over the altar to the most elaborate of Sacrament Houses).

Local synods required that communion taken to the sick be renewed every Sunday and provided direction for the disposing of older hosts. The elevations at Mass together with associated rituals (the ringing of bells, incensations, genuflections) were often the result of local initiatives before eventually becoming incorporated into the missals of the Franciscans

(1243) and the Dominicans (1256). The canonist Durandus described the ritual of ringing bells at the consecration and elevations as cheering believers and increasing their devotion.35

35 M. RUBIN, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture, Cambridge, University Press, 1997, pp. 42-53. The reference to Durandus is of particular note since he was not only an outstanding canonist but a bishop, pastor and liturgist. His Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, an extensive commentary on the Sacred Liturgy, written between 1294 and 1296, treated a compendium of liturgical matters including the symbolism of church buildings and ecclesiastical art, the clerical orders and ordination rites, the symbolism of liturgical vestments and colors, a lengthy explanation of the prayers, hymns and processions in the Mass, the divine office, the temporal and sanctoral cycles and methods of computation of the solar calendar. See The Rationale Divinorum Officiorum: The Foundational Symbolism of the Early Church, Its Structure, Decoration, Sacraments and Vestments, Books I, III, and IV, by Guilielmus Durandus (1230-1296 CE), Louisville.KY, Fons Vitae, 2007. In a presentation to honor Roger E. Reynolds, Senior Fellow at the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Timothy M. Thibodeau, Professor of History at Nazareth College, Rochester, noted that far from there existing a disconnect between such medieval liturgists and the populace, people of whatever state, monks, clerics, lay men and women, rich and poor, were "profoundly shaped by the official cultic practices of the medieval church." All aspects of life were influenced by the church's liturgical calendar and by the church's liturgical rites. And this had profound social and practical implications that impinged upon daily life as well as shaped the outlook of people towards reality. Thibodeau notes: "What one could eat, what one could wear, when one could be married and to whom, when one could have sex, when one could fight for a just cause: these and more were strictly regulated by an elaborate code of liturgical and sacramental jurisprudence which reached its apogee in precisely the era that Durand' s Rationale was written. The Rationale stands between the publication of two pillars of medieval canonical science: Gratian's Decretum (c. 1140) and the Liber Sextus (1298) of Durand's contemporary and confidant, Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303)." Thibodeau draws on the work of other scholars, including Johan Huizinga, a Dutch anthropologist who wrote extensively about the "liturgical mindset" of the late 27

In treating the history of the moderation and regulation of the liturgy, and taking into consideration the role of ecclesiastical authority, it seems appropriate to consider the role of the faithful in the celebration of the liturgy. According to Eamon Duffy, professor of the

History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge and President of Magdalen College, the laity had a profound if not perfect grasp of the meaning of the Mass. From an examination of everything from popular religious literature, prayer books (including Books of Hours), catechetical tools, the writings of individuals, the dispositions found in wills, the proceedings of ecclesiastical courts, account books and even the landscape of medieval religion as found in the art and architecture of the period, Duffy maintains that "no substantial gulf existed between the religion of the clergy and the educated elite on the one hand and that of the people at large on the other."36

Similar observations were presented at the Fourth International Colloquium sponsored by the Centre International d'Etudes Liturgiques. According to Joseph A. Gribbin:

medieval culture, and the Dominican theologian, Marie-Dominique Chenu, who coined the phrase "symbolist mentality." Thibodeau relates of Chenu: "In his detailed study of twelfth and thirteenth century philosophy, theology, literature and the plastic arts, Chenu concluded that medieval people, both clerics and the illiterate multitudes to whom they provided pastoral care, eagerly searched for traces of the divine in almost every element of their daily lives" (p. 88). Of Durandus, Thibodeau writes: "We know from his numerous pastoral works that Durand was a conscientious bishop: he compiled synodal statutes for his diocese, produced an Ordinal for his cathedral, and his famous Pontifical was unrivaled in the Latin Church until the reforms of the Second Vatican Council" (p. 89). See T.M. THIBODEAU, "From Durand of Mende to St. Thomas More: Lessons Learned from Medieval Liturgy," in Ritual, Text and Law: Studies in Medieval Canon Law and Liturgy Presented to Roger E. Reynolds, Burlington, VT, Ashgate, 2004, pp. 83-94.

36 E. DUFFY, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2005, p. 2. Duffy argues on the same page that "the liturgy was in fact the principal reservoir from which the religious paradigms and beliefs of the people were drawn." 28

It is clear that existing historical evidence from the middle ages indicates that the laity who participated at Mass did so actively, and not as passive spectators, largely by means of personal prayer, which was sometimes directly influenced by the liturgical texts and communal forms of prayer; by viewing and being spiritually united with the ceremonies of the Mass; by performing gestures which gave external expression to their inner dispositions and emphasized the communal aspect of the assembled lay people of God at the Holy Sacrifice.37

Such insights suggest that the laity had the appropriate means by which to participate in the celebration of the Mass and were keenly aware of its corporate nature as well as the moral and social implications arising from such participation.38 Furthermore, even though there were "signs of a privatizing tendency" evidenced in private books of prayer, the introduction of personal seating and even the securing of personal chaplains by the wealthy to offer Mass in private chapels, "the overwhelming impression left by the sources for late medieval religion in England is that of a Christianity resolutely and enthusiastically

37J.A. GRIBBIN, "Lay Participation in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Later Middle Ages," in Ministerial and Common Priesthood in the Eucharistic Celebration: The Proceedings of the Fourth International Colloquium, CIEL, UK, London, Saint Austin Press, 1999, p. 64. In the same presentation and on the same page, Gribbin noted: "The external participation of the faithful in the middle ages was clearly no less participatory for the absence of vocal liturgical responses, or complete comprehension of the Latin liturgical texts. While it generally lacked certain developed characteristics encouraged by the modern Liturgical Movement and the Magisterium, the participation envisaged in the middle ages was, still, fundamentally, actuosa participatio. Let us recall Pope Innocent Ill's opinion: 'Not only do priests offer the Holy Sacrifice, but all the faithful offer too; what is performed in a special way by the ministry of the priests is done in a general way by the desire of the faithful'." These observations are helpful especially in view of the fact that RS addresses the nature and meaning of lay participation in the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (nn. 36-42).

38Duffy relates an episode that ended up in an ecclesiastical court. In 1529, a woman by the name of Joanna Carpenter confronted a neighbor who was preparing to receive her Easter communion, requesting reconciliation before receiving the Eucharist. Speaking of the incident, Duffy notes: "This disruption of the annual parochial houseling landed Carpenter in the church courts, but the incident is eloquent testimony to the force of the theme of reconciliation and charity in lay perception of the Eucharist" (DUFFY, Stripping of the Altars, p. 95). 29 orientated towards the public and the corporate, and of a continuing sense of the value of cooperation and mutuality in seeking salvation."39

Two developments which would have an important influence on the moderation and regulation of the Sacred Liturgy consisted of additions to the opening pages of the Roman

Missal. One was the inclusion of an Ordo Missae prepared by the Papal Master of

Ceremonies, John Burchard (d. 1506), and which was drawn from the Ordines of the Papal

Court, describing how the Rite of Mass was to be carried out. This Ordo Missae would

become the foundation for the Ritus servandus which would appear in the Missal of Pius V

and its subsequent revisions. From 1534 onwards, the Ordo Missae would appear in the

opening pages of the Missale Romanum.40

The second noteworthy development was the inclusion within the opening pages of

the printed Missal of the Defectus in celebratione Missarum - drawn up from the teaching

of theologians by an unknown author and outlining the various kinds of defects possible in

the celebration of the Mass. These included defects in matter and form, defects in the

minister (including defects of intention as well as defects of body and soul) and defects that

could occur during the course of the celebration.41 Both these additions would provide a rule

and standard by which to govern the proper celebration of the Mass as well as determining

39Ibid., p. 131. Examples of this corporate identity included the building and decoration of parish churches throughout England (it being estimated that there were some 10,000 across the country), the charitable undertakings that accompanied the important feasts of the year, such as Corpus Christi, which included the exercise of what Duffy terms "holy neighbourliness'^ pp. 137- 138).

40J.O'CONNELL, The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal, Milwaukee, WI, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1944, pp. 7-8.

41Ibid. 30 abuses in the celebration of the Eucharistie sacrifice, serving as a compendium of those things to be observed {Ordo Missae) and those things to be avoided (defectus).

1.3 From Trent to Vatican II

The Council of Trent (1545-1563), responding to the challenges posed by the

Protestant reformers, endeavoured to refute both their doctrines on the Eucharist as well as the revised rites they had established by providing an authoritative presentation of Catholic

Eucharistie teaching while at the same time calling for a revision of the Missal. At the

Seventh Session, the Decree concerning the Sacraments contained a series of canons which, among other things, upheld the authority of the Church in their regulation and administration.

If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.42

At the Thirteenth Session, in the Decree concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the

Eucharist, the Council warned:

Wherefore, this holy council, stating that sound and genuine doctrine of the venerable and divine sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Catholic Church, instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and by His Apostles, and taught by the Holy Ghost who always brings to her mind all truth, has held and will preserve even to the end of the world, forbids all the faithful of Christ to presume henceforth to believe, teach or preach with regard to the most Holy Eucharist otherwise than is explained and defined in this present decree.43

42COUNCIL OF TRENT, sess. VII, March 3,1547, "Decree Concerning the Sacraments," in The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, translated and introduced by J.J. SCHROEDER, Rockford, IL, TAN Books and Publishers, 1978, p. 53.

43C0UNCIL OF TRENT, sess. XIII, October 11, 1551, "Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist," in Canons and Decrees, p. 72. In the canons attached to this decree, the Council anathematized anyone who denied the fundamentals of Catholic dogma on the Holy Eucharist including the Mass as a true and real sacrifice, the institution at the Last Supper of the 31

In addition to presenting the Catholic doctrine on the Holy Eucharist, chapter five of the same decree, on "The Worship and Veneration to be Shown to this Most Holy

Sacrament," reaffirmed the practice of adoration of the Eucharist.

There is, therefore, no room for doubt that all the faithful of Christ may, in accordance with a custom always received in the Catholic Church, give to this most holy sacrament in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God. Neither is it to be less adored for the reason that it was instituted by Christ the Lord in order to be received. For we believe that in it the same God is present of whom the eternal Father, when introducing Him into the world, says And let all the angels of God adore him; whom the Magi, falling down, adored; who, finally, as the Scriptures testify, was adored by the Apostles in Galilee.

The holy council declares, moreover, that the custom that this sublime and venerable sacrament be celebrated with special veneration and solemnity every year on a fixed festival day, and that it be borne reverently and with honour in processions through the streets and public places, was very piously and religiously introduced in the Church of God.44

The Council would revisit doctrinal and disciplinary matters surrounding the Holy Eucharist at the Twenty-Second Session with its Decree Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass as well as the Decree Concerning the Things to be Observed and Avoided in the Celebration of Mass

(September 17, 1562). This latter called for the holy sacrifice of the Mass to be celebrated

"with all religious devotion and reverence," and "with the greatest possible interior cleanness and purity of heart and exterior evidence of devotion and piety." Local ordinaries were directed to "prohibit and abolish all those things which either covetousness ... or irreverence

... or superstition have introduced." It mandated that "Each [local ordinary] in his own

Priesthood, the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice, and the offering of Masses for the dead. In regard to the rites to be observed in the celebration of the Mass, the Council condemned those who held the Canon of the Mass to be in error and in need of correction, or who disparage and reject the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs which the Church uses in the celebration of Mass, or Masses in which only the celebrant communicates, or the silent Canon, the mixing of water in the wine and the use of Latin, while advocating the use of the vernacular.

Ibid., in Canons and Decrees, p. 76. 32 diocese shall forbid that any wandering or unknown priest be permitted to celebrate Mass," nor may he give permission to anyone "publicly and notoriously wicked either to minister at the altar or to be present at the sacred services."45

Likewise, the Decree proscribed the offering of Mass "in private houses or entirely outside the churches and the oratories dedicated solely to divine worship and to be designated and visited by the same ordinaries," and it urged those responsible to "banish from the churches all such music which, by the organ or in the singing, contains things that are lascivious or impure" as well as "all worldly conduct, vain and profane conversations, wandering around, noise and clamour, so that the house of God may be seen to be and may be truly called a house of prayer." The Decree ordered that superstition be eliminated and that prescriptions be enacted to ensure that priests celebrate only at the proper hours and make use only of those rites or ceremonies and prayers during Mass approved by the Church and

"received through frequent and praiseworthy usage."46

The Decree concluded by exhorting local ordinaries and those with authority to exercise their responsibilities in the moderation and direction of the Sacred Liturgy as well

as the correction of abuses:

All these things, therefore, which have been summarily enumerated, are in such wise set before all local ordinaries, that by the authority given them by this holy council, and also as delegates of the Apostolic See, they may prohibit, command, reform and establish not only the things aforesaid but also whatsoever else shall seem to them to be connected therewith; and they may by ecclesiastical censures and other penalties, which in their judgment they may impose, compel the faithful to observe

45 COUNCIL OF TRENT, sess. XXII, September 17,1562, "Decree Concerning the Things to Be Observed and Avoided in the Celebration of Mass," in Canons and Decrees., pp. 144-151.

'Ibid. 33

them inviolately; any privileges, exemptions, appeals and customs to the contrary notwithstanding. 47

It was not until the Twenty-Fifth and last session of the Council that a Decree

Concerning Reform would entrust the task of revising the Missal to the Apostolic See and this within the context of proscribing books as well as preparing a catechism and reforming the Breviary.

The holy council in the second session, celebrated under our most holy Lord, Pius IV, commissioned some Fathers to consider what ought to be done concerning various censures and books either suspected or pernicious and to report to this holy council. Hearing now that they have put the finishing hand to this work, which, however, by reason of the variety and multitude of books the holy council cannot distinctly and easily estimate, it commands that whatever has been done by them be given over to the most holy Roman pontiff, that it may by his judgment and authority be completed and made public. The same it commands shall be done with regard to the catechism by the Fathers to whom it was assigned, and likewise with regard to the missal and breviary.48

Following the Council, Pope Pius IV (1559-1565) appointed a commission to carry out this revision. It produced the Breviarium Romanum in 1568 and the Missale Romanum in 1570. Although the Missal bears the name of Pope St. Pius V (1566-1572), its official title was Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum (The Roman

Missal restored by decree of the Council of Trent).49

47Ibid., p. 152.

48C0UNCIL OF TRENT, sess. XXV, December 3-4, 1563, "Decree Concerning the Index of Books and the Catechism, Breviary and Missal," in Canons and Decrees, pp. 254-255.

49Fortescue, commenting on this Missal, observed: "No doubt in every reform one may find something that one would have preferred not to change. Still, a just and reasonable criticism will admit that Pius V's restoration was, on the whole, eminently satisfactory. The standard of the commission was antiquity. They abolished later ornate features and made for simplicity, yet without destroying all those picturesque elements that add poetic beauty to the severe Roman Mass. They expelled the host of long sequences that crowded Mass continually, but kept what are undoubtedly the five best; they reduced processions and elaborate ceremonial, yet kept the really pregnant ceremonies, candles, ashes, palms and the beautiful Holy Week rites. Certainly we in the West may 34

According to the Bull of promulgation, Quo primum, the norms stipulating the use of this Missal were themselves relatively modest. The Missal was not imposed upon religious orders and places that had rites two hundred years and older.50 Regarding the revised Missal,

J. O'Connell noted:

The new missal did not introduce a new rite. Its compilation was a reform, and consisted in the codification of the traditional rubrics, in the correction of the texts, and in securing an agreement between the Missal and the newly reformed Roman Breviary (approved in 1568). It definitely fixed the text of the Ordinary - introducing officially into it the preparatory prayers, the Offertory prayers, the prayers preceding and following Communion, the Blessing and the Gospel of St. John - and greatly reduced the number of Sequences, of Prefaces and of proper Communicantes and Hanc igitur.51

Of itself, the promulgation of the new Missal did not bring about immediate liturgical uniformity. Taking into consideration the rather modest provisions of the Bull of promulgation as well as the fact that the decrees of the Council of Trent could only come into force in some Catholic kingdoms with the consent of civil authorities, and as we shall see, the retention in some places of local missals and rituals, the greater uniformity often

be very glad that we have the Roman rite in the form of Pius V's missal." See FORTESCUE, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Rite, p. 208.

50PlUS V, Bull Quo primum, July 14, 1570, in Bullarium Romanum 7:839-841.

510'CONNELL, The Celebration of the Mass, p. 8. This is an important observation since one of the arguments in our own time is whether the Mass promulgated by Paul VI in 1969 represented an authentic reform of the former Rite in continuity with the former Missal or a rupture with and departure from the classical Roman Rite as found in the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal. This is, in some ways, the contention of Alcuin Reid in his already cited work, The Organic Development of the Liturgy. Aside from this, Reid sums up the history of the Roman Rite up to the promulgation of the Pian Missal succinctly, writing on p. 19: "The central role of the Church of Rome in the Christian West meant that particular attention was given by other local Churches to her liturgical forms. The early Carolingian monarchs showed her particular reverence. Franciscan mendicants of the thirteenth century would spread the Roman missale throughout the West. The post-Reformation would impose it upon all Western Catholics where no venerable local rite existed." 35 associated with this period in the liturgical life of the Church would be furthered by a reform of the Curia.52

Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) promulgated the Bull Immensa aeterni Dei on February

11, 1588. The provisions of this reform would have a far-reaching influence upon the moderation and regulation of the Sacred Liturgy in the period following the Council of Trent and continuing right up to the present day. By this Bull, fifteen congregations were

520ne commentator, speaking of the promulgation of the new missal, notes that among the factors that contributed to the production of a version of the Missal presented as an editio typica was in fact the result of Gutenberg's invention in 1450. Up to this period missals were produced to answer a particular need for a particular cathedral or parish church and would have been produced by hand and according to the criterion of local custom. He noted as others have: "In fact, research into the collections of ecclesiastical laws and the decrees of the councils fails to turn up any overall legislation governing the production of liturgical books, and only a very small number of rules - a dozen spread over about one thousand years (!) - which bear upon specific points." Even the titles of such missals express the impact of customary law as in the Missale secundum consuetudines Romane Curie [sic] or a Missale ad consuetudinem insignis Ecclesiae Remensis. With the greater availability of such printed missals, people could more easily identify variants, errors and other imperfections and, from different circles, there was a movement to greater uniformity with some local synods even prescribing that future liturgical books only be printed with the approval of respective ordinaries. This commentator also notes that, with the Council of Trent, there were demands for a single missal for the whole Latin rite. Even the Emperor Ferdinand I made a similar request in 1562. A commission was established in 1547 to draw up a list of abuses in the celebration of Mass, in the practices surrounding indulgences and so forth, and a Compendium of such abuses with suggested remedies was presented in 1562. However, due to various factors, including lack of time, the Council decided to entrust this task to the Apostolic See together with publication of a Catechism, a reform of the Breviary and a revision of the Latin text of the Bible. This commentator writes: "It is interesting to note that, at the end of the day, the genesis of the rights of the Pope in this matter which, with a very few exceptions, will be almost exclusive so far as editing the missal is concerned, is fairly and, squarely of conciliar origin. We can reasonably suppose that behind this decision there lies the influence of the papal legates and the Secretary of State... but ultimately, the foundational act, so to speak, of this exclusive papal right in liturgical matters was established by the full assembly of the Bishops gathered in Trent." See J.M. POMMARES, "The Origins of the Roman Missal in the Liturgical Work of Pope St. Pius V," in Theological and Historical Aspects of the Roman Missal: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium of Historical, Canonical and Theological Studies on the Roman Catholic Liturgy, Surrey, CIEL UK, 2000, pp. 165-179, especially pp. 169-170. 36 established, including the Congregation for Sacred Rites and Ceremonies. Regarding the establishment of this Congregation, the Pope declared:

The Church, taught by the Holy Spirit and by Apostolic tradition and discipline, used sacred rites and ceremonies in the administration of the sacraments, the divine office, and the whole worship of God and the Saints. These sacred rites and ceremonies contain valuable instruction for the Christian people and for the profession of the true faith; they recommend the majesty of the sacred mysteries, lift up the minds of the faithful to the contemplation of the highest things, and inflame them with the fire of devotion. Since this is so, we desire to increase the piety of the Church's sons and of divine worship by the maintenance and restoration of sacred rites and ceremonies.53

Among the duties entrusted to its competence were vigilance over the observance of sacred rites, restoration and reformation of ceremonies, reform and correction of liturgical books, regulation of the offices of patron saints, canonization of saints, celebration of feast days, the reception of princes and other visitors to Rome, the resolution of controversies over precedence and other liturgical matters. Such competencies would remain unchanged until the reform of the Curia under the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X in 1908.54

One of the responsibilities of the Congregation was the reform and correction of liturgical books. There would be subsequent editions of the Pian Missal55 as well as the revising and promulgation of a number of liturgical books, including the Roman Pontifical

(1596), the Ceremonial of Bishops (1600) and the Roman Ritual (1614).56 The Congregation

53SlXTUS V, Bull Immensa aeterni Dei, February 11,1588, in Bullarium Romanum 8:985- 999, at 8:989-990; English translation of excerpts, F. MCMANUS, The Congregation of Sacred Rites, Canon Law Studies, n. 352, Washington, The Catholic University of America Press, 1954, pp. 26-27.

54McMANUS, The Congregation of Sacred Rites, pp. 27-28.

550'CONNELL, The Celebration of Mass, pp. 9-11. Such changes continued right up until the last century, culminating with the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal.

56It would appear as if there was some degree of ambiguity regarding the provisions associated with the promulgation of these liturgical books with a mixture of flexibility and 37 was entrusted with the task of ensuring the exact implementation of these books as well as providing official interpretations and new texts as needed.57

In addition to the implementation of the Tridentine liturgical legislation, especially that governing the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the period following the Council of

Trent also witnessed the continued encouragement of worship of the Eucharist outside of

Mass, especially with the spread of the Forty Hours' Devotion. Pope Clement VIII (1592-

1605) ordered the practice to be observed throughout all churches and public oratories in

Rome. In 1705 Pope Clement XI (1700-1721) issued a brief on the Forty Hours, and Pope

Clement XII (1730-1740) revised it in 1731. This came to be known as the "Clementine

Instruction."58

The period between the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council may be regarded as a time of increased uniformity in ecclesiastical discipline and liturgical regulation. Nevertheless, some degree of diversity continued. Some places adopted the newly revised liturgical books while others maintained their own missals and rituals. Some Catholic

uniformity. John Huels, commenting on the Roman Pontifical published by Clement VIII noted: "However, he allowed the continuance of praiseworthy customs provided they were of at least sixty years' duration. In 1614, Pope Paul V published the Roman Ritual (rites celebrated by priests) and encouraged its use but did not impose it except on new dioceses to be established in the future. Existing dioceses were free to retain their own rituals or adopt the new one. Despite this openness to diversity, the Ritual contained many liturgical laws applicable throughout the Latin church." See J. HUELS, Liturgy and Law, pp. 35-36.

570'CONNELL, The Celebration of Mass, pp. 24-25. Among the collections of authentic decrees of this Congregation was one in five volumes produced under the pontificate of Leo XIII (1878-1903) containing some 4,051 decrees. See CONGREGATION OF SACRED RITES, Decreta authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum ex actis eiusdem collecta eiusque auctoritate promulgata, Rome, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1898-1901, 5 vols.

58C. FlNNEGAN, Priest's Manual for the Forty Hours Devotion: History, Law and Indulgences, Ceremonies, Prayers, Paterson, NJ, St. Anthony Guild Press, 1958, p. 5. 38 kingdoms and local synods sought to enact liturgical reforms that included a simplification of the rites. Some missionaries attempted modest efforts at adaptation which the Apostolic

See would at times accommodate but later suppressed.

An example of the latter was the controversy surrounding the "Chinese Rites" which centred on the practices of some Jesuit missionaries in the Far East, especially China. These practices included the adoption of local dress, manners and customs as well as the integration of some aspects of ancestor worship and the use of Chinese names for God. Tensions arose with the arrival of missionaries from other religious orders such as the Dominicans and

Franciscans who regarded such practices as syncretistic. The result was a long, drawn-out dispute which began with an initial denunciation of such adaptations by the Apostolic See, followed by greater accommodations and eventually culminating in a definitive condemnation. On July 11,1742, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758)59 issued the Bull Ex quo singulari, proscribing the incorporation of such practices, customs and traditions. He required missionaries to take an oath to observe its prescriptions and not to discuss the terms of the document. Showing how the Church's mission and her liturgical practices were very much affected by a number of complicated factors, including political ones, one historian, writing at the beginning of the last century observed:

59Benedict XIV, Prospero Lambertini, while remembered for the resolution of the "Chinese Rites," was a prolific writer on the Sacred Liturgy, addressing matters such as the reform of sacred music, the reception of Holy Communion during Mass and from the sacred hosts consecrated at that Mass, the care of churches, the causes of saints and so forth. Vol. IX of Benedict's Opera Omnia offered extensive commentary on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as well as the feasts of the Liturgical Year. See Benedicti XIV, Pont. opt. max., olimProsperi Cardinalis de Lambertinis, editio novissima ad postremam remondinianam omnino exacta., Prati in Typographia Aldina, 1743, 17 vols. 39

The bitterness of this celebrated quarrel was greatly increased by various causes: the rivalry of Portugal and France for the protectorate of the missions, the disputes between Jansenists and Jesuits, and the Bull Unigenitus; while the final decision was delayed as much by the question of episcopal sees in China as by the rites themselves. Rome, having spoken, no more can be said here on the question, but it may be noted that the Bull was a terrible blow to the missions in China; there are fewer Christians than formerly and none among the higher classes.60

In addition to the challenges presented by the missionary activity of the Church, there was resistence in some parts of Europe to the use of the liturgical books promulgated in the aftermath of the Council of Trent. J. Huels explains: "However in the late seventeenth and throughout the eighteenth centuries, bishops in France reacted against Roman domination of the liturgy and began to revise and reissue their own liturgical books with the approval of the king."61

Such tendencies to liturgical independence were not only limited to France. In the

Austrian-Hungarian Empire, "Josephinism," named after the Emperor Joseph II and influenced by Febronian and Jansenist ideas, involved the subordination of the Church to the state and the regulation of internal ecclesiastical affairs. Regarding the liturgy, a series of norms were promulgated prescribing everything from the number of candles used at Mass, the length, style and content of sermons as well as the removal of superfluous altars, images and vestments.62

60H. CORDIER, art. "China," in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3, New York, The Encyclopedia Press, 1913, pp. 671-672.

61HUELS, Liturgy and Law, p. 37

62H. FRANZ, art. "Joseph II," in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 8, New York, The Encyclopedia Press, 1913, pp. 509-510. Franz relates how Frederick the Great of Prussia called the Austrian Emperor "our brother Joseph, the sacristan." 40

There were other movements towards simplified rites as manifest in the decrees of the Synod of Pistoia which had proposed, among other things, that there be only one altar in a church, that certain devotional and pious practices be prohibited and that the use of the vernacular be encouraged. In the Constitution Auctoremfidel of August 28,1794, Pope Pius

VI (1775-1799) condemned most of its propositions as "rash, injurious to the very ancient pious custom flourishing and approved for these many centuries in the Church, especially in the Latin Church."63

Examples such as these illustrate that some diversity in liturgical practice continued in the period following the Council of Trent and that "reforming" movements with the support of the state sought to simplify the rites of the Church. It was not until the nineteenth century and early twentieth century that the uniformity so often identified with the post-

Tridentine period in the Church's life came to pass. Furthermore, such centralizing tendencies were less the encroachment of the Apostolic See on the legitimate autonomy of local churches than often the result of initiatives undertaken by priests and bishop in the local regions themselves in an effort to strengthen their unity with the Apostolic See.

One of the most important and well known of these initiatives was the work of Dom

Prosper Gueranger (1805-1875), the French Benedictine who did much to restore monastic life in France in the period following the French Revolution and who was instrumental in

H. DENZINGER, Enchiridion Symbolorum: The Sources of Catholic Dogma [=DZ\, translated by R. J. DEFERRARI from the Thirtieth Edition, Fitzwilliam, NH, Loreto Publications, 2004, no. 1531, p. 380. Pius VI also condemned Febronianism with the Bull Super soliditate of November 28, 1786 (see DZ, no. 1500, pp. 368-369). Pius would even undertake a journey to Vienna in an effort to reach out to Joseph II. 41 spreading the use of the Roman Missal throughout the dioceses of France.64 By 1830 there were only twelve dioceses using the Roman Missal whereas most were using missals printed locally, prepared in accordance with principles of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Among the principles that have been identified were the removal of non-scriptural texts and the reduction of the number of feasts in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints.

According to one commentator, these principles were connected to Jansenism coupled with

Gallicanism and were, at the same time, influenced by the spirit of the Enlightenment with its tendencies towards rationalism, subjectivism and individualism.65

For Gueranger, the missals prepared in France lacked the qualities which he attributed to the Roman Liturgy: antiquity, universality, authority and piety. Gueranger saw the goal of restoring the Roman Missal as intimately related to the spiritual life of the faithful. In this context, one of his goals was making accessible a supernatural education which the liturgy provided in order to promote a liturgical spirituality. The goal in this effort was not the reform of the rites or their simplification but that of leading the faithful to appreciate the rites as they existed. Accordingly, he saw the liturgy as the language of the Church, the expression

64According to the description on the cover of one recent biography: "Dom Gueranger began his work in the aftermath of the French revolution, when religious life was effectively abolished in all of Europe. Aiming to restore all aspects of monastic life, the preservation of Gregorian chant - the sung liturgy of the church - was an essential part of Dom Gueranger's goal. He re-founded the Abbey of St. Peter in Solesmes, France, which flourishes today as the worldwide centre of Gregorian Chant spirituality and performance." See L. SOLTNER, Solesmes and Dom Gueranger 1805-1875: Scholar, Priest and Monk , translated by J. O'CONNOR, Orleans, MA, Paraclete Press, 1995.

65E. HENRY, "Dom Gueranger and the Restoration of the Roman Rite in France," in Theological and Historical Aspects of the Roman Missal: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium of Historical, Canonical and Theological Studies on the Roman Catholic Liturgy, published by CIEL, UK, 2000, pp. 75-100. 42 of her faith, of her vows and of the homage she renders to God.66 Alcuin Reid, commenting upon the work of renewal carried out by Gueranger, described it as follows:

This is but another example of the emergence, by the end of the nineteenth century, of a principle of liturgical reform that we may call the principle of liturgical piety. It seeks to reform, not the liturgical rites and prayers, but the spiritual dispositions and practices of the Catholic faithful.67

An outstanding example of the principle of "liturgical piety" can be found in the life and pontificate of Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914). His episcopal ministry showed the kind of relative autonomy a bishop enjoyed in the promotion and fostering of the liturgical life of his diocese. In both Mantua and eventually in Venice, he would do much to further such piety, especially in his encouragement of the renewal and revival of Gregorian chant in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy.68

When elected pope on August 9,1903, with his motto "to restore all things in Christ"

(Eph. 1:10), Pius X set about promoting the Sacred Liturgy. On November 22,1903 he issued the Motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini on the restoration of sacred music. This letter would

66Ibid., As already noted, when Gueranger began his work in 1830, only about a dozen French dioceses used the Roman missal but, by the time of his death in 1875, the last remaining diocese, that of Orleans, took up its use. See ibid., p. 89.

67REID, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, p. 67.

68In a sense, Msgr. Sarto was the model of a post-Tridentine bishop, visiting his diocese, attending to the restoration of his seminary and the reform of the clergy (he introduced frequent spiritual conferences for the Mantua clergy including eight times a year for parish priests and confessors). Sarto seemed familiar with the work being carried out at Solesmes. In a letter to a clerical friend he wrote: "We must promote Gregorian chant and ways of making it popular. Oh, if only I could get all the faithful to sing the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei in the same way they sing the Litanies and the Tantum ergo. To me this would be the most beautiful victory for sacred music, because it is by really taking part in the liturgy that the faithful will maintain their devotion." See Y. CHIRON, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church, translated by G. HARRISON, Kansas City, MI, Angelus Press, 2002, pp. 51-81. 43 give the liturgical movement a phrase that would enter into the lexicon of the liturgical renewal and form the foundation for much of the liturgical reform:

Filled as We are with a most ardent desire to see the true Christian spirit flourish in every respect and be preserved by all the faithful, We deem it necessary to provide before anything else for the sanctity and dignity of the temple in which the faithful assemble, for no other object than that of acquiring this spirit from its foremost and indispensable font, which is the active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church69 [emphasis added].

In the period following the Motu proprio, a number of initiatives reflected this concern of the Pope to foster the spiritual life of the faithful through a more devout celebration of the liturgy and reception of the sacraments. In 1905, the Congregation of

Sacred Rites issued the decree Sacra Tridentini Synodus which urged frequent and daily communion.70 In 1910, the decree Quam singulari allowed children who had reached the age of reason to receive Holy Communion.71 Although Pius did not introduce changes to the

Missal, he did authorize a reform of the Breviary with the Apostolic Constitution Divino afflatu, promulgated on November 1, 1911.72

PlUS X, Motu proprio, Tra le sollecitudini, November 22,1903, in Acta Sanctae Sedis, 36 (1903-1904), pp. 329-339; English translation: www.adoremus.org/TraLaSollecitudini.html, (July 5,2007); emphasis added. The meaning of this phrase partecipazione attiva will be addressed in RS (cf. nn. 36-42).

70SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE COUNCIL, Decree Sacra Tridentini Synodus, December 20, 1905, in Acta Sanctae Sedis, 38 (1905-1906), pp. 400-406. The Decree takes its name from the incipit since it begins recalling an exhortation from the twenty-second session of the "Holy Council of Trent" which declared: "The Holy Council wishes indeed that at each Mass the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but sacramentally, by the actual reception of the Eucharist." English translation: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWFREQ. HTML., (January 30, 2008).

71SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE SACRAMENTS, Decree Quam singulari, August 8,1910, in AAS, 2 (1910), pp. 577-583; English translation in DZ, nn. 2137-2144, pp. 548-549.

72PlUS X, Apostolic Constitution Divino afflatu, November 1, 1911, in AAS, 3 (1911), pp. 633-638. 44

In 1908, with the Apostolic Constitution Sapienti consilio, Pius undertook the first overall reform of the Roman Curia since Sixtus V.73 The Constitution sought to clarify the competencies of the Congregations, including the Congregation for Sacred Rites. In this reorganization, the competencies of this Congregation included matters pertaining proximately to sacred rites; vigilance for the carrying out of rites and ceremonies; the granting of dispensations, insignia and privileges; beatifications, canonizations and sacred relics. Furthermore, a new Congregation was established, that for the Discipline of the

Sacraments. A number of special committees would continue to function under the

Congregation for Sacred Rites including the Historical-Liturgical Committee (which would undertake the studies that would contribute to the work of reform in the years following).

Likewise, the norms issued following the Constitution gave a further description of the

Congregation's responsibilities to include the approbation of liturgical books, concession of new offices and calendars, settlement of liturgical questions and the granting of indults.74

It might be appropriate to consider how these developments as described were received at the local level and how this understanding of liturgical renewal and liturgical piety influenced the pastoral ministry. An example can be found in the First Plenary Council of Canada which took place in Quebec City in 1909. The decrees of this Council were

73PlUSX, Apostolic Constitution Sapienti consilio, June 29,1908,inA4S, 1 (1909), pp. 7-58. 74McMANUS, The Congregation of Sacred Rites, pp. 39-42. McManus, on p. 42, comments on these changes: "In summary, the reforms of Pius X in 1908 did not substantially change the Congregation of Sacred Rites. Its nature and structure remained unaltered, and the new definition of its competence served to clarify its position in the Roman Curia and in the government of the Church universal." 45 published in 1912 together with pastoral letters to the faithful in both French and English.75

Among the decrees promulgated were the reiteration of the discipline on the Easter Duty (no.

471), frequent and even daily reception of Holy Communion (no. 470) as well as norms for the rite of administration of the Eucharist (no. 474).

Under Title XII, De cultu, Chapter I treated a number of matters including the importance of interior as well as exterior worship (no. 539), the observance of the Lord's Day precept as well as obligatory feasts (nn. 541-546) and reaffirmed points of Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist as taught by the Council of Trent including the Mass as a true sacrifice (no.

547), the purposes and fruits of the Mass (no. 548) with the exhortation that priests observe the rites and rubrics and use such norms to catechize the faithful (no. 550). It repeated the requirements for the matter of the Holy Eucharist (no. 552) and called for a close study of the rubrics (no. 560). The Chapter also renewed the discipline governing the reservation of the

Holy Eucharist (no. 562), the place and construction of the tabernacle (no. 563), exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, Forty Hours devotions, processions as well as the appropriate illuminations on these occasions (nn. 564-567).76

15Acta et deer eta Concilii plenarii Quebecensis prima anno domini MCMIX, Quebec, Typis L'Action Sociale Limite, 1912. 76The sources for these decrees as indicated in the footnotes of the decrees themselves included the Roman Ritual, the Ceremonial of Bishops, the decrees of the Council of Trent, the bulls of promulgation of the Roman Missal and other liturgical books, various decrees of the Congregation for Sacred Rites and the letters Motu proprio (no. 554 was taken from the prescriptions found in Tra le sollecitudini). It is clear from a purview of its prescriptions, exhortations and declarations that it was the goal of the Plenary Council to enforce all existing liturgical legislation and discipline while reflecting the contemporary developments found in the teaching of Pius X and the recent decrees of the various dicasteries of the Holy See. 46

In the pastoral letter issued by the bishops, we see an example of the principle of liturgical piety, that is, a renewal of the dispositions of the faithful partaking in the Mass rather than an attempt at reforming the structure of the rites themselves. The letter emphasizes fostering the Christian spirit in the individual, in the family and within the wider society through a renewal of private, domestic and social life. After tracing the model and characteristics of the Christian life, the bishops addressed the sources of such Christian living. Drawing upon the Decree on Frequent and Daily Communion, the bishops called the faithful to return to the "primitive" fervour of the first Christians:

It is not, then, surprising that the church, to which is entrusted the mission of preserving the life of the soul, has always cherished an ardent zeal to attract the faithful to the Holy Table. Trained in the very school of the Apostles, the first Christians held it a necessity, as well as an honour, to be the daily guests of that hallowed banquet. With the eyes of faith they saw that the soul as well as the body was in need of its daily bread, to sustain it against collapse on the way to Heaven; and on each day the Divine Master nourishes with his Flesh and Blood all those who so eagerly desired to take their life from His.77

Furthermore, the Bishops commended this practice of frequent and daily communion as a powerful means of fortifying the faithful in the face of the pressures of modern life:

"Frequent Communion is the most efficacious remedy for the evils that ravage modern society; it will heal the fever of materialism which so imperils supernatural life, and it, more than all else, will re-establish Christ in souls."78

Acta et decreta Concilii plenarii Quebecensis primo, pp. 362-363. 78Ibid. p. 536. The Plenary Council served as a fitting prelude to the Twenty-First Eucharistic Congress which took place in Montreal, September 6-11, 1910. Among the topics of the various conferences presented during the course of the Congress were Frequent Communion, Communion among the Working Classes, Practical Study of the Decree of Pius X on Frequent Communion, Training of People in Liturgical Singing, and the Holy Eucharist and Modern Life. In his message to the Papal Legate, Pope Pius X wrote: "Our great desire to foster the devotion to the Most Blessed Eucharist from which as from their source abundant streams of divine grace are poured out upon 47

It was under the pontificate of Pius X that the work of codification of the Church's canonical legislation was undertaken and which would be promulgated by his successor,

Benedict XV (1914-1922), with the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater Ecclesia.19

Canon 2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law stated:

The Code, for the most part, determines nothing concerning the rites and ceremonies that the liturgical books approved by the Latin Church determine are to be observed in the celebration of the most holy sacrifice of the Mass, in the administration of the Sacraments, and in conducting other holy Sacramentals. Therefore, all of these liturgical laws retain their force, unless something about them is expressly corrected in this Code.

Thus did the legislation confirm the ius vigens of the rubrics of the liturgical books, the decisions of the Congregation of Sacred Rites as well as legitimate customs. While the Code did not deal directly with liturgical matters, Book III, parts I, II and III, contained a significant body of legislation touching upon the liturgy, including cc. 814-823 (on the Mass) and cc.

845-869 (on Holy Communion).

A fundamental principle regarding the regulation of Sacred Worship was enunciated in c. 1257: "It belongs to the Apostolic See to order sacred liturgy and to approve liturgical

Christian society at large, and upon the faithful individually, renders very gratifying to us the practice, now almost passed into a custom, of holding solemn conventions at stated intervals and in various quarters of the world in honor of this transcendent mystery." Referring to the matters to be discussed at the Congress, the Pope expressed the hope that "devotion to the August sacrament may be spread and honored more widely, so that, in this wise the insults heaped upon it may be repaired, and practice of frequent communion revived, and all may be convinced that no devotion is more efficacious than this, to link souls together in the bonds of peace and good will so necessary to Christian and civil society; in fine, that by the writings and the manifold activities employed, men may be led to higher and better achievements." See The Narrative of the Eucharistic Congress, Montreal, The Montreal Tribune, 1910, pp. 14-15.

79BENEDICT XV, Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, May 27,1917, in AAS, 9(1917), pp. 5-8; English translation in E.N. PETERS (ed.), The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2001, pp. 21-24. This translation is used for all citations of the canons of the 1917 Code. 48 books." This canon represents the culmination of a process whereby the Holy See acquired exclusive authority in legislating for the liturgy and issuing the liturgical books of the Roman

Rite. As for authorities subordinate to the Apostolic See, c. 1260 stated: "Ministers of the

Church in exercising cult must depend only on ecclesiastical superiors." Canon 1261, § 1 noted: "Local Ordinaries shall be vigilant that the prescriptions of the sacred canons on divine cult be scrupulously observed, and especially lest there be introduced in divine cult, whether public or private, or in the daily life of the faithful, any superstitious practice or that in any way there be admitted something alien to the faith or inconsistent with ecclesiastical tradition or anything looking like a sort of profit."

1.3.1 The Juridical Authority of the Congregation of Sacred Rites

Given the importance of this Congregation since its inception, and in view of the competencies entrusted to this dicastery by the legislation contained in the Pio-Benedictine

Code as well as the legislation governing the Roman Curia, it seems appropriate to consider how its authority was understood in the period following the promulgation of the 1917 Code and leading to the convocation of the Second Vatican Council. Regarding the Congregation of Sacred Rites, c. 253 of the 1917 Code set forth the following:

§ 1 The Congregation of Sacred Rites has the authority to see and establish all those things that proximately involve the sacred rites and ceremonies of the Latin Church, but not which refer to sacred rites in the wide sense, things like the right of precedence, and others of this sort, which are treated either in juridical order or in the disciplinary line.

§ 2 It is for it especially to be vigilant that the sacred rites and ceremonies are diligently observed in celebrating the Sacred [Synax], in the administration of the Sacraments, in conducting divine offices, and in all those things that respect cult in the Latin Church; [it can] grant opportune dispensations; it can give out insignia and 49

privileges of honour whether personal or for a time, whether to places or perpetually, in matters affecting sacred rites and ceremonies, and shall take care lest these fall into abuse.

§ 3 Finally, all those things that pertain to the beatification and canonization of the Servants of God or to sacred relics in any way are referred to it.

J. O'Connell provides an overview of the authority of the Congregation in his already cited work, The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal. O'Connell notes: "Ordinarily, the S.R.C. is an executive tribunal, and only per acci dens is it a legislative body. Its decrees, when drawn up in due form and duly promulgated, have the authority of the Pope, even if they had not been referred to him."80 The Congregation was understood as exercising by ordinary jurisdiction the authority to watch over liturgical books, grant or extend new offices, suppress older ones, give approval or allow reforms of local calendars, name and approve new patrons, grant indults and faculties which affect the modification of rites, and resolve doubts on liturgical matters. By delegated jurisdiction granted it by the

Pope, the Congregation was entrusted with making changes in the texts or rubrics of liturgical books, approving new typical editions, granting new feasts, elevating already established ones to a higher class and granting indults contrary to existing rubrics.81

80O'CONNELL, The Celebration of Mass, p. 25. He elaborates on the same page: "A decree is authentic when it is drawn up in writing and signed by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation and its secretary and furnished with the seal of the Congregation. All the decrees which are published in the official Collection are authentic (i.e. all the decrees up to 1926), and so are all others that have since appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Like all ecclesiastical laws, unless it is otherwise determined, each decree comes into force three months after the date of the number of the Acta in which it appears. The decrees are thus promulgated, and need no promulgation by the diocesan bishop."

'Ibid. 50

As to the nature of the decrees issued by the Congregation, O'Connell classifies them as concessionary (granting favours such as dispensations and privileges) or disciplinary

(giving decisions including executive and interpretative decrees). Interpretative decrees could be merely declaratory, that is to say, clarifying a law or rubric not objectively doubtful but whose interpretation is sought from ignorance or scrupulosity. Such decrees could also be comprehensive, that is to say, the interpretation does not change the law but provides a correct interpretation on account of doubts that had arisen due to unclear wording with the result that different interpretations were being given by rubricians. As to their scope, interpretative decrees could be extensive or restrictive, departing from the ordinary meaning of the words of a law by either extending or restricting its meaning.82

Additionally, the decrees of the Congregation could be, particular, having to do with either a particular object (some special long usage) or particular persons (a diocese or religious order). They could also be, formally general, such that by both their content and form, they concern the entire Latin Church, or equivalently general in that, although directed to particular persons, they regard matters of general application.83

Finally, as to the binding force, the decisions of the Congregation are preceptive if issued in a clearly preceptive form or treating a rubric or decree that is preceptive. Decisions could also be facultative when they concern rubrics that are optional. Formally general decrees were considered binding on all who followed the Roman Rite whereas particular decrees bound only those to whom they were addressed and, if concessionary, could not be

82Ibid., p. 26.

83Ibid. 51 applied to others. Decrees that were disciplinary, while not strictly binding on those who were not their object, reveal the mind of the Church and the norm of conduct and so may be applied to similar cases.

Equivalently general decrees, if merely declaratory of an existing law, bind without promulgation in virtue of that law; if they give an extensive interpretation, adding something new, they are of universal obligation only if promulgated as formally general decrees; and if they contain a comprehensive interpretation they are obligatory on those to whom they are addressed as well as others when the same reply is repeated in the same terms, several times

(therefore representing the stylus curiae)}4

1.3.2 The Obligatory Nature of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal

Canonists commonly considered the rubrics of the Roman Missal and other liturgical books to be obligatory. O'Connell describes the rubrics as the laws, directions, and suggestions contained in liturgical books governing the right ordering of liturgical functions.

They were classified as substantial and accidental rubrics. The former prescribed the matter and form of the sacraments. The latter, while not touching directly upon the validity of the liturgical act, direct and moderate the liturgical rite in which the substantial portion is contained. As positive ecclesiastical laws, they were understood as binding under pain of mortal or venial sin "according to the gravity of the matter," with only "a sufficient and proportionately grave cause" excusing from the observance of accidental rubrics.85

84Ibid., pp. 26-27.

85Ibid., pp. 17-18. 52

Substantial rubrics were understood as based upon divine law and therefore immutable whereas accidental rubrics were ecclesiastical law and could be changed or dispensed but only by the authority of the Holy See. The substantial rubrics were therefore understood as binding all in conscience sub gravi. This was not subject to debate. But what of the accidental rubrics which may be either preceptive, directive or facultative? The common opinion was that accidental rubrics, being laws, are preceptive except when they state clearly that they are not, and therefore accidental rubrics oblige. The Pio-Benedictine

Code regarded all the rubrics (including the accidental ones) as "liturgical laws" without making the distinction between those considered preceptive or directive. Therefore the Code required that the rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Church in the approved liturgical books were to be accurately observed in the celebration of the Mass (c. 818), in the recitation of the Divine Office (c. 135), and in the administration of both the Sacraments (c. 733, § 1) and the sacramentals (c. 1148, § 1). Not only the rubrics governing the celebration of Mass but also those concerning the choice of Mass, the calender to be observed, the preparation of the altar and even some of the prayers before and after Mass were also considered as having an obligatory character unless there were indications to the contrary, such as the use of the expression pro opportunitate}6

O'Connell offers what might be regarded as the generally accepted opinion regarding the obligatory character of the rubrics, whether substantial or accidental.

Whether each and every rubric (except the facultative ones) bind in conscience or not is, then, an open question. What all theologians and rubricians are one in believing and teaching is that "Sancta sancte tractanda sunt" - that the object of

'Ibid., pp. 19-23. 53 every rubric is to aid the priest in performing as perfectly as possible those sublime acts of worship whose end is to honour God worthily and edify men. It is the spirit of the rubrics, in the long run, rather than the letter of them, that is important. With reverence and love towards God, out of obedience and loyalty to His Church, should they, each and all, be fulfilled.87

1.3.3 Reforms Leading to the Second Vatican Council

In the period leading to the Second Vatican Council, a number of liturgical revisions were made by the Apostolic See. The first was a new edition of the Roman Missal issued on the authority of Benedict XV in 1920. New texts included prefaces for the feast of St. Joseph and for Requiem Masses, formularies for the second and third Masses of All Souls Day and a new common for the feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary. A new common and preface for

Christ the King was composed and inserted into the Missal after the establishment of the

Feast in 1925 as well as a new Preface for the Feast of the Sacred Heart in 1928. There were also minor changes, including indulgences, prayers to be said before and after Mass as well as the re-classification of the ranks of feasts such as that of the Precious Blood.88

Under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), there were a number of significant developments in liturgical discipline. In his encyclical letter Mediator Dei, the

87Ibid., p. 24. Thomas Richstatter, in the introduction to his book Liturgical Law, Chicago, Herald Press, 1977, p. xxx, quotes a French cleric who wrote: "In the cult which we offer to God, there is nothing of little importance, nothing of light matter" (P. DE PUNIET, La methode en matiere de liturgie, Des Semaines liturgiques, Mont Cesar, Louvain, 1914, p. 60). As c. 818 of the Pio- Benedictine Code stated: "Reprobating every contrary custom, celebrating priests are to observe accurately and devoutly the rubrics of their own ritual books, taking care lest they add other ceremonies or prayers on their own authority."

'O'CONNELL, The Celebration of Mass, pp. 10-12. 54

Pope gave a cautious encouragement to the liturgical movement and, noting some of its benefits, declared:

The majestic ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the altar became better known, understood and appreciated. With more widespread and more frequent reception of the Sacraments, the worship of the Eucharist came to be regarded for what it really is: the fountainhead of genuine Christian devotion. Bolder relief was given likewise to the fact that all the faithful make up a single and very compact body with Christ for its Head, and that the Christian community is in duty bound to participate in the liturgical rites according to their station.89

Nevertheless, the Pope warned: "But while We derive no little satisfaction from the wholesome results of the movement just described, duty obliges Us to give serious attention to this 'revival' as it is advocated in some quarters, and to take proper steps to preserve it at the outset from excess or outright perversion." He continued: "We observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, overeager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence."90

The Pope addressed a number of themes, including the nature of the liturgy as exterior worship (n. 23) and especially as interior worship (nn. 24-27), the importance of personal piety (nn. 28-33), the participation of the faithful and the establishment of diocesan liturgical committees to promote such participation (nn. 80-111). On the reception of Holy

Communion, the Pope recalled the teaching that, for the integrity of the sacrifice, the communion of the priest is sufficient, but he nevertheless encouraged both spiritual and

89PIUS XII, Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei, November 20,1947 inAAS, 39 (1947), pp. 521- 604, at p. 523; English translation in ST. PAUL EDITIONS, The Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XII on the Sacred Liturgy Mediator Dei, Boston, Daughters of St. Paul, p. 5.

'Ibid., AAS, p. 524; St. Paul Editions, pp. 5-6. 55 sacramental communion by all the faithful and for communion to be received if possible during Mass, followed by suitable thanksgiving (nn. 112-124).91

The Pope also emphasized the importance of the worship of the Eucharist outside of

Mass, explaining that it was on the basis of the adoration of the Eucharist that the cult of worship developed distinct from the celebration of the Mass; the reservation of the Sacred

Species for the sick and those in danger of death had led to the "praiseworthy custom of adoring the Blessed Sacrament" (no. 131). As a consequence, the Church developed a variety of Eucharistic devotions, including visits to the tabernacle; solemn processions, especially at Eucharistic Congresses; and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament exposed whether for the duration of one hour, for several or for forty hours and even perpetual adoration (no. 132).

The Pope also commended the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament as being of "great benefit," especially when the blessing is imparted upon the people gathered (no. 135).92

As for the regulation of the Sacred Liturgy, the Pope explained that, by its very nature, offered as it is in the name of the Church and, in view of its intimate connection with doctrine, "its regulation and details cannot but be subject to Church authority." Furthermore, the Pope reiterated and expanded on the law of the Code:

... the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modifications. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship. Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and

91Ibid., AAS, pp. 530-567; St. Paul Editions, pp. 12-51. Many of the matters touched upon by the Pope are addressed by RS, including the participation of the lay faithful, the meaning of active participation, the role of diocesan liturgical commissions and the distribution of Holy Communion.

'Ibid., AAS, pp. 569-571; St. Paul Editions, pp. 53-55. 56

venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honour due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His August Mother and the other Saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.93

During the pontificate of Pius XII, the Holy See permitted new editions of the Roman

Missal that admitted the limited use of the vernacular. A number of countries received permission to publish editions of the Roman Ritual, and many of its rites could be celebrated in the vernacular. A commission was struck to prepare the reform of the liturgy, and it would continue meeting until I960.94 It would be responsible for a number of important reforms including the revised Holy Week liturgies (culminating in the restoration of the Easter Vigil), the permission for evening Masses, the reduction of the Eucharistic Fast, a simplification of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary, including the elimination of a number of the

Ibid., AAS, p. 544; St. Paul Editions, p. 27. RS would repeat a number of the concerns raised by Pius XII in his encyclical letter, including the sentiment of the last line of the aforementioned quotation when the Instruction declared: "For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine..." (RS, no. 10).

94A look through the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1948 and following finds no mention of this commission, appointed on May 28, 1948. Annibale Bugnini, who was named secretary for the Commission wrote: "In the twelve years of its existence (June 28, 1948 to July 8, 1960) the commission held eighty-two meetings and worked in absolute secrecy. So secret, in fact, was their work that the publication of the Ordo Sabbati Sancti instaurati at the beginning of March 1951 caught even the officials of the Congregation of Rites by surprise. The commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope, who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini and even more, on a weekly basis, by Father Bea, confessor of Pius XII. Thanks to them, the commission was able to achieve important results even during periods when the Pope's illness kept everyone else from approaching him." See A. BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975, translated by M.J. O'CONNELL, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1990, p. 9. See also C. BRAGA, La riforma liturgica di Rio XII: Documenti, Rome, CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, 2003. Among the matters treated by the commission were the Calendar, the Roman Breviary, the reform of the Roman Missal and other liturgical books including the Roman Ritual, the Ceremonial of Bishops and the Roman Pontifical. 57 commemorations made at Mass as well as a number of octaves and vigils.95 As his papacy drew to a close, Pius XII, in a speech to the participants in the International Congress of

Pastoral Liturgy which took place in Assisi in 1956, declared: "The liturgical movement is

...a sign of the providential dispositions of God for the present time and of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church."96

1.4 Vatican II

On January 25, 1959, Pope John XXIH (1958-1963) announced his intention to convoke an Ecumenical Council. A consultation was undertaken to seek proposals from the episcopate, universities and faculties as well as from the dicasteries of the Roman Curia as to the matters to be addressed by the Council. A significant number of the responses from the bishops had to do with the liturgy.97 After this consultation, a number of preparatory

95F. McMANUS, art. "The Liturgical Reform of Vatican II," in The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship [=NDSW], Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1992, pp. 1082-1083.

96The Assisi Papers: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Assisi-Rome, September 18-22, 1956, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1957, p. 224.

97The Acta et documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando confirms this. From Canadian Bishops, a number of common themes touching upon the Sacred Liturgy emerged. Many asked for an increased use of the vernacular in the administration of the Sacraments and at least in the Mass of Catechumens so that, as Bishop LeBlanc of Bathurst put it, the Mass might be better understood. Bishop MacEachern of Charlottetown, urging a greater use of the vernacular, quoted Sacred Scripture: Populus hie labiis me honorat cor autem eorum longe est a me" (Mtt 15:8). Archbishop Berry of Halifax urged that at least the first part of the Mass be permitted in the vernacular. Bishop Cody of London suggested that, with a greater number of people receiving Holy Communion regularly, there should be a briefer formula for its distribution, either Corpus Christi or Corpus Christi custodiat te. Archbishop Lemieux of Ottawa suggested a reduction in the number of the days of precept. Cardinal Roy of Quebec proposed increased opportunity for concelebration especially at gatherings with many priests, such as Eucharistic Congresses and spiritual exercises. Archbishop Baudoux of St. Boniface likewise suggested concelebration at the Mass of Chrism as well as at spiritual exercises and congresses. Bishop Smith of Pembroke asked for the mitigation of the Eucharistic Fast, especially for persons suffering from medical conditions such as diabetes. A 58 commissions were established, including one on the Sacred Liturgy. Taking into account the submissions received, this commission prepared a draft constitution for debate at the Council.

This prepared draft or Schema was then sent to the Central Preparatory Commission which, after making its own emendations, allowed it to be presented to the Council, making it the first major document to be considered by the Council Fathers.98 Following further emendations as the result of conciliar debate, it was eventually passed by a vote of 2,147 to

4, with the final text promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963."

That the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was the first of the documents to be promulgated by the Second Vatican Council was of great significance. This was not lost on

Pope Paul in his closing address at the end of the second session of the Council. He explained that the Sacred Liturgy was "the first in order of intrinsic excellence and importance for the life of the Church." The Pope elaborated:

number of bishops raised concerns about the Breviary, among them greater use of the vernacular. See Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1960, Series I, Vol. II, Part VI, pp. 9-161.

98When Pope lohn brought the first session to a close he noted: "It was no accident that the first schema to be considered was the one dealing with the sacred liturgy. The liturgy has to do with man's relationship with God. This relationship is of the utmost importance. It must be based on the solid foundation of revelation and apostolic teaching, so as to contribute to man's spiritual good; and that with a broadness of vision which avoids the superficiality and haste that often characterizes relationships among men." See JOHN XXIII, Address Prima sessio, December 8, 1962, inA*^, 55 (1963), pp. 35-41, at p. 37; English translation in The Pope Speaks, 8 (1962-63), pp. 298-403 at p. 400.

"It is perhaps more correct to say that the Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul together with the Bishops gathered in Council. The formula reads: PAULUS EPISCOPUS SERVUS SERVORUMDEI UNA CUMSACROSANCTICONCILIIPATRIBUSADPERPETUAMREIMEMORIAM. See SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, [=SC], December 4, 1963, in AAS, 56 (1964), pp. 97-133; English translation in A. FLANNERY, Vatican Council II: vol. I, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, [= Flannery], Northport, NY, Costello Publishing Company, Inc., 1996, pp. 1-36. 59

We may see in this an acknowledgement of a right order of values and duties: God in the first place; prayer our first duty; the liturgy the first school of spirituality, the first gift which we can bestow on Christians who believe and pray with us. It is the first invitation to the world to break forth in happy and truthful prayer and to feel the ineffable life giving force that comes from joining us in the song of divine praise and of human hope through Christ Our Lord and in the Holy Spirit.100

The Constitution would serve as the foundation and inspiration for both the immediate reforms that began even as the Council was in session and the post-conciliar reforms that would lead to the promulgation of a new Rite of Mass as well as other revised rites. The Constitution was comprised of an introduction together with seven chapters:

General Principles for the Restoration and Promotion of the Sacred Liturgy (Chapter I, nn.

5-46), the Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist (Chapter II, nn. 47-58), the Other

Sacraments and Sacramentals (Chapter EI, nn. 59-82), the Divine Office (Chapter IV, nn. 83-

100), the Liturgical Year (Chapter V, nn. 102-111), Sacred Music (Chapter VI, nn. 112-121) and Sacred Art and Sacred Furnishings (Chapter VII, nn. 122-130).101

The Constitution brought together the teaching of the Popes as well as the insights and contributions born of the liturgical renewal taking place within the Church in the years leading up to the Council. In his treatment of the Constitution, one of the key architects of

IOOPAUL VI, Address Tempus iam advenit, December 4, 1963, in AAS, 56 (1964), pp. 31-40 at p. 34; English translation in The Pope Speaks, 9 (1963-64), pp. 224-225.

101In his commentary on the Constitution, J. Jungmann describes the theological-juridical nature of the document: "The document has been described as a constitution, that is, it is a permanent law and not a mere decree settling momentary questions. But it is a disciplinary, not a dogmatic, constitution; that is, it contains dispositions pertaining to the sphere of practical life rather than dogmatic teachings. To be sure these dispositions are grounded in the teachings of the Church; however, the teachings contained therein are not defined but only taught. In other words, they have the character of statements of the magisterium ordinarium." See J. JUNGMANN, "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy," in H. VORGRIMLER (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, translated by L. ADOLPHUS, K. SMYTH and R. STRACHAN, Freiburg, Herder and Herder, 1967, p. 8. 60 the liturgical reform, the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, described some of the

"fundamental principles" within the constitution. Among the foundational elements he identifies six which would shape the future reform of the liturgy.

The first was the understanding of the liturgy as an exercise of the priestly office of

Christ (no. 7). The Constitution did not give a precise definition of the liturgy but described it, not only in terms of its externals, but in the context of the priestly act of Christ whereby

God is "perfectly glorified and men are sanctified." The Constitution declared:

The liturgy, then, is rightly seen as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. It involves the presentation of man's sanctification under the guise of signs perceptible by the senses and its accomplishment in ways appropriate to each of these signs. In it full public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and his members.102

In this context, worship is more than its external elements and more than that human activity which natural law and the virtue of justice with its attendant virtue of religion requires. It exceeds individualism by emphasizing its corporate and ecclesial character. Furthermore, no.

8 of SC recalls that the earthly liturgy is "a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God."

The second principle Bugnini identified is the teaching of the Council that the liturgy is the "summit and fount" of the Church's life (no. 10). All the activity of the Church, in one way or another, finds its strength from worship and receives inspiration and direction from this worship.

SC, no. 7, in AAS, p. 101; Flannery, p. 5. 61

The liturgy is thus the unifying centre of all the Church's activity. Evangelization and catechetical instruction are not ends in themselves but have for their purpose to help human beings attain to full communion with God and participation in the salvation which Christ has accomplished and which is made present in liturgical celebrations ... The centrality of the liturgy must be kept in mind in teaching, catechetics, and pastoral practice.103

The entire work of the Church in its various pastoral and missionary activities must have a doxological dimension.104 In this context, the subsequent three articles in the

Constitution address the role of the liturgy in the spiritual life. From this perspective, the proper celebration of the liturgy has profound implications for the life of the faithful and for all aspects of the Church's activity. Among the consequences of this understanding was the realization of the need to give greater attention to the study of the liturgy in academic settings and in places of formation as well as the need for initial and ongoing liturgical formation of clergy and faithful.

Thirdly, the liturgy requires the "full, conscious and active participation" of all the faithful, a principle that would pervade the entire Constitution (no. 14). Bugnini notes:

The full and active participation of all the people has been a special concern in the reform and promotion of the liturgy, for the liturgy is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful can derive the true Christian spirit. This thought has been the basic motive at work in the modern liturgical renewal and the conciliar document.

No article in the Constitution is unaffected by the idea that the liturgy, which is the worship and adoration of God, also effects the sanctification of human beings and must therefore be understood, followed, and shared by the entire community of the faithful.105

103BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, p. 41.

104See R. TAFT, Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding, Washington, The Pastoral Press, 1984, pp. 111-112.

105BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, p. 41. 62

Jungmann observes that this is a far-reaching principle in that now, by reason of their baptism, "not merely the clergy but the Church is subject of the liturgy, that, in other words, the entire body of the faithful has been summoned to participation in it as the priestly people of God."106 The call to active participation is a "refrain" of the Constitution, recurring in fifteen other passages of the document.

Fourthly, the Constitution envisaged the liturgy as a "manifestation of the Church"

(no. 26).107 Among the consequences of this understanding is that communal celebrations are to be preferred to individual ones (no. 27). Furthermore, in liturgical celebrations each person fulfills only that role which pertains to the office he holds (no. 28). Bugnini notes that this would not only affect the very appearance of the liturgical assemblies (which he describes as being carried out exclusively by the clergy while the people assist as "mute spectators from outside"), it would also contribute to a renewed sense of the Church giving rise to new ministries in service to the community.108 The Church is described in the document not according to juridical terms but in the context of its sacramental character, a theme that would be developed further in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium. The link between liturgy and ecclesiology had characterized the liturgical movement

from the very beginning: "the revival of the liturgy went hand in hand with the renewal of

the concept of the Church."109

106JUNGMANN, Commentary, p. 17.

l01SC, in AAS, p. 107; Flannery, p. 10.

108BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, p. 42.

109JUNGMANN, Commentary, p. 9. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church is a frequently cited source in RS, occurring at least fifteen times within the footnotes of the Instruction. Clearly, 63

Fifthly, nn. 37-38 permit legitimate variations and adaptations while preserving the substantial unity of the Roman Rite and avoiding "rigid uniformity." Concerning this principle, Bugnini notes:

The attention given to catholicity within basic unity also has legislative consequences. The complete centralization effected by the Council of Trent now makes way, in matters liturgical, to three levels of authority: the Holy See, episcopal conferences, and diocesan bishops. Regulation of the liturgy now depends on all three, even if in varying degrees (no. 22). In particular, the Constitution reminds the local bishop that as "high priest of his flock" he has an obligation to foster the liturgical life by his example and by the use of all necessary means.110

The sixth principle involved the balancing of "sound tradition" and "legitimate progress." The Constitution, following the traditional distinction, noted that there are clearly elements within the liturgy that are of divine institution (the substantial rubrics), and these are untouchable and unchangeable. But there are also elements which, over time, the Church has chosen to employ in order to protect the substantial elements, and these can be subject of change.111

The reform of the liturgical rites mandated by Vatican IT necessitated careful study and research in order to appraise those elements to be retained, those to be revised and those the orderly and fitting celebration of the Eucharist and the elimination of abuses have profound implications for the life of the Church, and this is strongly attested to in the Instruction.

110BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, p. 43.

11'Ibid., p. 44. Bugnini writes: "Signs and rites are likely to become incrusted by time, that is, to grow old and outmoded. They may therefore need to be revised and updated, so that the expression of the Church's worship may reflect the perennial youthfulness of the Church itself." RS, no. 9 suggests that among the reasons for liturgical abuses is "ignorance," a failure to understand those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. It recalls no. 24 of the Constitution by noting that the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are "pervaded by the inspiration and impulse" of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, "and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning." So even those elements sometimes described as "accidental" rubrics and the subject of "merely ecclesiastical law" are rooted in a tradition that receives its inspiration from the Word of God as well as ancient practices of the Church. 64 to be revived. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy provides an overarching principle that would guide this reform: "Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the

Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing."112

In what ways did the Constitution influence or change the moderation and regulation of the Sacred Liturgy? In light of the object of this chapter, to situate the Instruction

Redemptionis Sacramentum within the context of the history of that moderation, it seems appropriate to examine those elements in the Constitution that address such regulation and moderation and to consider whether or not the document represents a significant development of this history. In Section III of Chapter I entitled, "The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy," no.

22 of the Constitution declares:

§ 1. Regulation of the liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, accordingly, as the law determines, on the bishop.

§ 2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops lawfully established.

§ 3. Therefore, no other person, not even if he is a priest, may on his own add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy.113

n2SC, no. 23, in AAS, p. 106; Flannery, p. 10. The Instruction RS draws heavily upon conciliar documents. The Constitution on the Liturgy is cited twenty-six times in the footnotes. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, is cited fifteen times; the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests Presbyterorum ordinis, six times; the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops Christus Dominus, four times. These are direct citations, but many of the canons quoted in the Instruction take their inspiration from the conciliar teaching. The Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches Orientalium Ecclesiarum, is cited once as is also the Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church Ad gentes.

"3Ibid., AAS, p. 106; Flannery, pp. 9-10. 65

To accomplish the goals set forth in the Constitution, the Council entrusted to the competent territorial bodies of bishops mentioned in no. 22, par. 2 a number of tasks and responsibilities hitherto reserved exclusively to the Apostolic See. These include the use of the vernacular as well as the translation of liturgical books from the Latin text (SC, no. 36); the adaptation of liturgical rites and books (SC, no. 39); the making of proposals to the Holy

See for further adaptation (SC, no. 40); the establishment of liturgical commissions to regulate pastoral liturgical action throughout their respective territories (SC, no. 44); adaptations of the Roman Ritual (SC, no. 63); the preparation of a Rite of Marriage (SC, no.

77); the renewal of penitential discipline (SC, no. 110); the use of instruments other than the pipe organ (SC, no. 120); and adaptations regarding the material and design of sacred furnishings and vestments (SC, no. 128).

From one perspective, these provisions represent a true innovation, decentralizing authority in liturgical matters not simply to individual bishops (which could lead to excessive segmentation) but to a supra-diocesan territorial authority. Commentators such as Josef

Jungmann regarded no. 22 of the Constitution as putting the law of liturgical regulation on a new footing:

The strict centralization by which, after the Council of Trent, the liturgy of the Western Church was rescued from the disintegration of liturgical forms at the close of the Middle Ages and reshaped into a compact order which was laid down in the CIC , was thus greatly replaced after 400 years. It is not longer "alone the right of the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy and to approbate the liturgical books" (canon 1257), but "as laws may determine" - which have partly been laid down in the Constitution itself - also the right of the bishops and the "competent territorial bodies of bishops."114

114JUNGMANN, Commentary, p. 19. Similarly, F. McManus observed: "Under this heading the locus of power and liturgical authority is first determined in the Bishop of Rome, the chief bishop, and in each of the diocesan bishops at the head of the respective local churches and, at the 66

Certainly, from one perspective, in the history of the Roman liturgy and its regulation, the

Constitution represents a modest if not necessarily dramatic departure from the recent past.

However, it was a limited and cautious departure.

The restoration of episcopal liturgical authority was only partial. The bishop's authority is exercised according to the norm of law (ad normam iuris), and conferences of bishops may act only when permitted by law or by the Holy See and within established limits. Vatican II gave only limited authority to the diocesan bishop and the conference of bishops to regulate the liturgy. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was open to a greater decentralization if permitted by the Apostolic See, but this has not occurred to any significant extent.115

1.5 Implementation of the Constitution

The Constitution came into effect on the First Sunday of Lent, February 16, 1964.

Article no. 25 states that "the liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible, experts

are to be employed in this task and bishops from various parts of the world are to be

intermediary level, in assemblies of bishops from a group of churches (n. 22). The determination is made by the council itself by the supreme authority of the College of Bishops - and then the means of the reform of the Roman Liturgy as a whole is mandated: by revising the traditional liturgical books 'as soon as possible'." McMANUS, The Liturgical Reform, p. 1086.

115HUELS, Liturgy and Law, p. 39. Of course, no commentator would advocate a decentralization that would eliminate the role of the Apostolic See since it is, after all, the Roman rite of which we refer. Thus the primacy of the Apostolic See in the regulation of the Sacred Liturgy (for the Latin Church) makes eminent sense. As we have noted in our treatment of the history of the moderation of the liturgy, the movement towards greater centralization was as much the result of a groundswell that arose from different quarters of the Church as it was the encroachment of the Holy See on the legitimate rights and customs of the local or particular churches. As a patriarchal see, Rome was even slower in exercising a liturgical primacy. Even in our own time, the desire for greater uniformity and consistency in the celebration of liturgical rites reflects the feeling among many that too much diversity is the cause of consternation, confusion and scandal. The complaint is that one Catholic parish does things quite differently from another, and this usually cannot be attributed to legitimate cultural differences and traditions. Even within a single diocese, certain practices often vary from parish to parish. 67 consulted."116 In response, Paul VI issued the Motu proprio Sacram liturgiam on January 25,

1964, establishing a commission entrusted with the task of implementing the Constitution.'17

The Pope explained:

Many of the prescriptions of the Constitution clearly cannot be put into effect in a short period of time, since some of the rites must first be revised and new liturgical books prepared. In order that this work may be carried out in the wisdom and prudence required, we are setting up a special commission with the principal task of seeing that the prescriptions of the Constitution are put into effect.118

The Pope also mandated that, beginning the First Sunday of Lent, February 16,1964, a number of the provisions of the Constitution would come into effect: on the teaching of liturgy,l19 the establishment of diocesan or inter-diocesan commissions for the liturgy and for art and music (no. II), the homily at Masses on Sundays and holydays of obligation (no. Ill),

mSC, in AAS, p. 107; Flannery, p. 10.

117Paul VI, Motu proprio Sacram liturgiam, January 25, 1964, in AAS, 56 (1964), pp. 139- 144; English translation in Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts [=DOL], Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1982, nn. 276-289, pp. 84-87. Commenting on the creation of the commission, Frederick McManus states: "The fundamental purpose of this official council under the direct supervision of the pope was both to direct the correct and concrete application of the Constitution in the reform of the liturgical books, and also to promote the conciliar magisterium through doctrinal and practical liturgical instructions." Furthermore, McManus notes that its international membership was comprised of renowned experts and even non-Catholic observers! (See F. MCMANUS, art., "The Liturgical Reform of Vatican II," in NDSW, pp. 1091- 1094).

1 liSacram liturgiam, p. 140; DOL, no. 278, p. 84. Bugnini explains that the Consilium was "an authoritative study group that also had temporary administrative functions and was directly dependent upon the Pope." Needless to say, there were conflicts of competence between this Commission, and the Congregation of Rites which regarded itself as the juridical organ of the Holy See for liturgical matters. The Congregation viewed the Consilium as a study group lacking autonomy. It was eventually decided that in the promulgation of the decrees of the Ecumenical Council, the Congregation and Consilium would be associated with the documents produced, these being signed by the prefect and secretary of the Congregation and the president of the Consilium (see p. 71 of The Reform of the Liturgy).

'Ibid., AAS, p. 141; DOL, no. 279, p. 85. 68 the rites of confirmation and marriage within the Mass and the nuptial blessing even at a marriage outside Mass (nn. IV-V). The document also has number of provisions regarding the Divine Office (nn. VI-IX). Finally, the Pope directed that the territorial bodies of bishops referred to in no. 22, par. 2 must be national bodies, and he specified their membership and voting procedures (no. X).120 After the Motu proprio and the establishment of the Consilium, the work of preparing the new rites began, including a new Rite of Mass. Some changes were introduced even before the completion of these revisions so that there would be gradual and incremental change.121 Among the significant documents produced to guide this process of reform were three general instructions for the correct implementation of the Constitution. The first of these was the Instruction Inter oecumenici of September 26,1964.122 This document was issued in the name of the Congregation of Rites in conjunction with the Consilium. It was composed of an Introduction (which restated some of the salient features of the

Constitution), and five chapters: General Norms (nn. 9-47), the Mystery of the Eucharist (nn.

120Such bodies would become important links in the process of reform which, although primarily directed and carried out at the level of the Apostolic See, would depend on such bodies for their practical implementation.

121Bugnini, on p. 58 of The Reform of the Liturgy, comments on some of the negative reactions to Sacram Liturgiam: "In substance, the motu proprio granted little of the much that the Constitution had promised. But we must keep in mind the principles of gradualness that had to be followed in the practical implementation of the conciliar document, as well as an admitted mistrust and concern in the face of the impatience of some who were already launching into rash courses of action without adequate preparation of clergy or faithful." Bugnini also referred to the feeling of some that the document was limiting the authority of conferences of bishops and represented an attempt on the part of the Curia to block the conciliar document. While the nuances of such reactions are not of concern here, we might note that, for the most part, the major work of overhauling the Sacred Liturgy was very much a carefully organized and crafted process that came from the center.

122 S ACRED CONGREGATION OF RITES (CONSILIUM), Instruction Inter oecumenici, September 26, 1964, in AAS, 56 (1964), pp. 877-900; English translation in DOL, nn. 293-391, pp. 88-110. 69

48-60), other Sacraments and Sacramentals (nn. 61-77), the Divine Office (nn. 78-89) and the Designing of Churches and Altars to Facilitate Active Participation of the Faithful (nn.

90-99).

Among the purposes of this Instruction was setting forth the process for the implementation of the reforms called for by the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Thus did the Instruction direct that whatever was to be entrusted to the "competent territorial ecclesiastical authority" was to be put into effect only through lawful decrees, with provision being made for a vacatio in order to instruct and prepare the faithful regarding observance of the new changes (no. 10). Furthermore, the Instruction delineated the composition of the territorial bodies referred to in SC, no. 22, § 2 as well as various associated procedures (nn.

23-31). Drawing on the indications given in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the

Instruction gave the following competencies to these territorial bodies: the use of the vernacular and the manner of its introduction (no. 30); the manner in which to enforce the

Constitution's prohibition against preferential treatment of individuals or social classes during the course of the liturgy (no. 34); the preparation of translations of liturgical texts by the liturgical commissions established by such territorial bodies (no. 40); the melodies for the sung parts of the liturgy (no. 42); norms governing liturgical commissions of the territorial authority and their membership, tasks and responsibilities (nn. 44-46). Among the other competencies were the manner in which the "prayer of the faithful" was to be restored in places where it was not already the custom (no. 56), the extension as permitted of the vernacular to parts of the Mass (no. 57) and other Sacraments and sacramentals (no. 61). 70

By the end of 1964, parts of the Roman Rite were altered significantly. Chapter II of the Instruction Inter oecumenici, in addition to the already noted restoration of the Prayer of the Faithful before the Offertory (no. 56), provided for the reading or chanting of the readings facing the people (nn. 49-52), an obligatory homily on Sundays and holydays of obligation at Masses with a congregation (nn. 53-55), and extended use of the vernacular (nn. 57-58).

Likewise, it made a significant number of modifications to the Rite of Mass: the elimination of the practice in which the celebrant recited privately those texts sung or recited by the choir or the congregation, the abolition of Psalm 42 at the prayers at the foot of the altar, the abolition of the Last Gospel as well as the Leonine Prayers at the conclusion of Low Mass, and the simplification of the formula for the distribution of Holy Communion (no. 48).

The process of liturgical reform and revision would involve a number of forms and means. In some cases, this would be done by means of Instructions issued by both the

Congregation for Rites and the Consilium. At other times it was effected by a singular act of the Supreme Authority. One such example of this was the reduction of the Eucharistic fast to one hour for both priests and faithful. Paul VI announced this change during a session of the Council.123

Further implementation of the provisions of the Constitution involved the preparation on the part of the Consilium of a Rite of Concelebration which together with an outline of the rite was promulgated in the Decree Ecclesiae semper on March 7, 1965. The Decree explained how liturgical experts, having researched the matter, submitted requests for

123PAUL VI, Concession Attentis multarum, November 21, 1964, in AAS, 57 (1965), p. 186; English translation in DOL, no. 2117, p. 668. 71 concelebration and that the Second Vatican Council, after careful consideration, extended the faculty and mandated that a new rite of concelebration be inserted into the Pontifical and

Roman Missal. The Decree explained how the unity of the Eucharist and the unity of the priesthood would be more clearly manifest by concelebration. The same decree also included provision for a rite of communion under both kinds and established the occasions on which the faithful might receive under both forms.124

The national conferences of bishops were also very active in implementing the liturgical reforms. For example, the Canadian Catholic Conference (as it was known at the time) published a small volume entitled Liturgical Renewal: Documents Issued by the Holy

See and the Canadian Episcopate 1963-1964. In it were published the texts of the

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the Motu proprio Sacram Liturgiam as well as the

Instruction on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Inter oecumenici. It also contained two decrees by the Canadian bishops, as well as a pastoral letter, together with further directives, practical norms concerning the introduction of the vernacular, the manner of celebrating Mass according to Inter oecumenici and a pattern for a parish low Mass.125

In their pastoral letter the Canadian bishops expressed enthusiasm in promoting the vision of liturgical reform proposed by the Council and subsequent documents. Rejoicing in the conviction that they were living in a fruitful and productive era, the bishops viewed this

124 CONGREGATION OF RITES, Decree Ecclesiae semper, March 7, 1965, in AAS, 57 (1965), pp. 410-412; English translation in DOL, nn. 1788-1793, pp. 554-556.

125CANADIAN CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, Liturgical Renewal: Documents Issued by the Holy See and the Canadian Episcopate 1963-1964, Hull, Gauvin Press Limited. 72 work of the Council as contributing to a renewal of faith and apostolic life within the Church.

Noting that a more complete reform of the liturgical books was in the works, they said that certain modifications and simplifications could be undertaken in accordance with the goals of the liturgical reform. In keeping with the competencies entrusted to them, the bishops explained that, from February 1964, the epistle and gospel would be proclaimed in the vernacular and that the use of the vernacular would eventually be extended to other parts of the Mass as well as the other sacraments. More than merely external changes, the bishops situated the liturgical renewal in the context of profound reasons having to do with the meaning of the liturgy itself126 In a spirit of hopeful optimism, the bishops declared:

It is our fervent hope that the liturgical renewal will bring about in our midst a more profound Christian life and a more intimate union with Christ in the life of grace. This hope can be realized only if our priests and faithful accept our decisions in a spirit of faith and begin immediately to put them to work with understanding and diligence.127

The second part of the letter provided practical norms to ensure the liturgical reform, including an exhortation that the priests and laity receive the decisions of the bishops with faith and apply the norms appropriately. Pastors were exhorted to be, as the Council had urged, imbued with the liturgical spirit (SC, no. 14), to manifest both their faith and their love of the liturgy to the faithful entrusted to their care (SC, no. 18), to make use of acclamations, responses, psalms, antiphons and hymns (SC, no. 30). The bishops also warned pastors not to make changes except under the direction of the episcopal and diocesan commissions respectively and insisted on the oft-repeated rule that authority for the liturgy belongs to the

126Ibid., pp. 97-104.

127Ibid., p. 106. 73

Church, namely, to the Holy See and to the Bishops, and that no individual had the right to carry out reforms which were not authorized by the competent authority.128

The bishops also noted that the renewal of the liturgy would require ongoing catechesis in the mysteries of the faith as well as continuing education for priests for, without such formation, the liturgical renewal would not be profitable. They acknowledged that the implementation of the Constitution would be a "difficult and delicate and urgently needed task" and would necessitate the co-operation of all. While primarily the responsibility of the

Holy See and the bishops, its success would depend on the priests and faithful.129 They concluded by saying:

We conclude with the prayer that all will have the grace to give to the directives of the Holy See and of their Bishops their generous and sincere co-operation. We beg you to be patient in the case of delay, to avoid unauthorized and ill-considered innovations and to put the fullest trust in the operation of the Holy Ghost in the Church which is leading us to this liturgical renewal in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.130

In the decrees and statutes that followed this Pastoral Letter, the bishops moved quickly to implement norms permitting the use of the vernacular, and having received the confirmation of the Holy See, extended its use to the greater part of the Mass: the

Introductory Rites, the Liturgy of the Word, the Offertory, the Preface Dialogue, Preface and

Sanctus, the Communion Rite and Concluding Rites. The Bishops also designated the translations to be used for both French and English sectors, making provision for those

'Ibid., pp. 106-107.

'Ibid., pp. 107-108.

'Ibid., p. 108. 74 communities where the majority of the faithful speak a language other than French or English and allowing them, with the consent of the Ordinary of the place, to make use of a translation approved by the territorial ecclesiastical authority competent for such a language.131

In the years that followed, the Canadian Catholic Conference took a number of steps in the implementation and promotion of the liturgical renewal. In 1965, the Conference began publishing the Bulletin of the National Commission on Liturgy. A review of the bulletins in this period indicate that all the alterations of rites were duly noted, and their texts printed, providing an invaluable service in the first years following the implementation of the reforms of the liturgy. The Bulletin also translated the replies of the Consilium to the numerous questions presented to it from throughout the world and which were published in its journal,

NotitiaeP2

As part of the process of liturgical renewal and in keeping with the call of the

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the Episcopal Liturgical Commission, English Sector,

I31Ibid.,pp. 111-113.

132Future issues of the Bulletin on Liturgy would devote attention to providing translations of prefaces (February, 1966), Holy Week Chants for Celebrant and Ministers (March, 1966), Music in the Liturgy (April, 1967), Ordination Rites (May, 1967), Experimental Funeral Rites (May, 1967), a list of consecutive readings for weekdays (June, 1967), the Second Instruction on the Liturgy together with a commentary by A. Bugnini as well as clarifications and changes to the Ordo Missae (June, 1967), the Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (July 1967), the Canon of the Mass in English as well as musical settings for the central portion of the Canon, Doxology and Final Blessing (November 1967), a Commentary on the Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (December, 1967), guidelines for the Prayers of the Faithful (January, 1968), the Baptism of Adults in Several Stages (February -March, 1968 and April-May, 1968), new Eucharistic Prayers and New Rites for the Ordination of Deacons, Priests and Bishops (October, 1968), Text Melodies for Eucharistic Prayers and Prefaces (November, 1968), the decree implementing the Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani Recognitio which contained the new rites for the conferring of Sacred Orders (March, 1969), the Liturgical Calendar for Canada (October, 1969), and the new Order of Mass together with the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of April 3,1969 together with the General Instruction for the Celebration of the Eucharist (January, 1970). 75 announced in the September, 1965 issue of the Bulletin, the formation and composition of the National Council on Liturgy. One had already been organized in the French Sector in

January of the same year.133

All of this represented an extraordinary enterprise and clearly demonstrated that, at the local level, the Canadian Bishops were quick to implement both the Constitution on the

Sacred Liturgy and the subsequent documents of the Holy See that would further the process of liturgical reform, exercising and taking advantage of the competencies that had been entrusted to them by these documents. The overhauling of the Roman Rite taking place at the universal level and directed by the central authority of the Church was, in the case of the

Canadian Bishops, carried out eagerly and enthusiastically.

Further instructions and decrees continued the monumental task. In 1967, the Second

Instruction on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Tres abhinc annos (also known as the Instructio altera) sought to respond to some of the proposals made by bishops throughout the world with the goal of facilitating increased participation as well as affording a clearer understanding of the liturgical rites, especially the

Mass.134 The Instruction noted that, while every proposal could not be approved, others could be put into effect since they represented no hindrance to the reform being prepared and would only require the alteration of the rubrics and not the liturgical books currently in use.135 In this

'"CANADIAN CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, "Announcement of the Establishment of the National Council on Liturgy," in National Bulletin on Liturgy, September, 1965, p. 137.

134 CONGREGATlON OF RITES (CONSILIUM), Instruction Tres abhinc annos, May 4, 1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 442-448; English translation in DOL, nn. 445-474, pp. 135-140.

Ibid., AAS, p. 442; DOL, no. 446, p. 135. 76 context, the Instruction repeated what might be called a "capital principle" of Church discipline, that stated in SC, no. 22: "Regulation of the liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church. Therefore no other person, not even if he is a priest, may on his own add, take away, or change anything in the liturgy."136

One concrete innovation of this Instruction was permitting the competent territorial authority to authorize the use of the vernacular for the Canon at Masses celebrated with a congregation, for the rites of ordination and for the readings of the divine office (no. 28). The

Instruction also mandated the elimination of certain repetitive gestures of the priest during

Mass (nn. 7-12). Permission was granted to the faithful to receive Holy Communion twice

136Ibid. The repetition of the principle suggests that at a very early stage in this phase of the liturgical reform the Holy See was deeply concerned with unauthorized reforms and adaptations. In its first issue of Notitiae, the Consilium felt it necessary to declare that it had only granted indults for concelebration and communion under both kinds, any claims to the contrary notwithstanding. See CONSILIUM, Declaration Passim quandoque, June 15, 1965, in Notitiae, 1 (1965), p. 145; English translation in DOL, nn. 404-405, p. 116. Similarly, the President of the Commission, Cardinal Lercaro, in a letter to presidents of conferences of bishops, worried that "clouds here and there darken the horizon of the new day of the liturgy's vitality." He noted that the new liturgical norms would allow some flexibility but "that does not mean that every priest can do what he likes and redesign the sacred rites of the Church to suit his fancy." Cardinal Lercaro gave a brief description of the work carried out by the Consilium and addressed some of the issues such as Mass celebrated facing the people, the placement of the tabernacle (with the assurance that more information on this matter would be given), and the number and placement of images. See CONSILIUM, Letter Le renouveau liturgique, June 30,1965, in Notitiae, 1 (1965), pp. 257-264; English translation in DOL, nn. 407-418, pp. 117-122. In a letter the following year, the Cardinal addressed the relations between hierarchies and liturgical centres, the Mass in Latin, the choice of language in bilingual regions, choirs and sacred music, altars facing the people, the placement of the tabernacle, and the role of women serving at the altar. See CONSILIUM, Letter of the President L'heureux developpement, January 25, 1966, in Notitiae, 2 (1966), pp. 157-161; English translation in DOL, nn. 419-429, pp. 122-125. Once again, at the end of 1966, the Consilium issued a declaration that regarding arbitrary liturgical innovations and expressed surprise with "novel and improvised rites, vestments, and texts, sometimes with music of an altogether profane and worldly character, unworthy of a sacred service." The Declaration stated: "These travesties of worship, springing from mere private initiative, tend inevitably to desacralize the liturgy, the purest expression of the worship the Church offers to God." See CONSILIUM, Declaration Daqualche tempo, December 29, 1966, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 85-86; English translation in DOL, nn. 433-434, pp. 127-128. 77 on Holy Thursday at the Mass of Chrism and the evening Mass of the Lord's Supper (no. 14).

Violet vestments could be substituted for black for the office and Mass for the dead (no. 23).

Additional norms simplified the vesture of celebrant and concelebrants (nn. 25-27).137

On May 25,1967, another significant document leading to the promulgation of a new

Missal was published, the Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium.138 The Instruction provided an overview of the principles governing the liturgical renewal and the salient features of

Catholic doctrine concerning the Eucharist, including those reiterated in recent documents, especially Pope Paul's Encyclical Mysterium fidei.139 The Instruction noted that this encyclical had "recalled the importance of certain aspects of Eucharistic teaching, especially on the real presence of Christ and the worship due to this sacrament outside Mass" (no. 1).

Eucharisticum mysterium was composed of three major sections: General Principles, the Celebration of the Memorial of the Lord, and Worship of the Eucharist as a Permanent

Sacrament. The Introduction noted that "the Eucharistic mystery must be considered in its entirety, both in the celebration of Mass and in the worship of the sacred elements reserved after Mass in order to extend the grace of the sacrifice" (no. 3, g). This twofold treatment of the Eucharist in both its celebration and in its worship outside of Mass reflects the teaching of the Council of Trent.

137Ibid., AAS, pp. 447-448; DOL, nn. 471-473, p. 139. 138S ACRED CONGREGATION OF RITES, Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium [=EM], May 25, 1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 539-573; English translation in DOL, nn. 1230-1296, pp. 395-420.

139PAUL VI, Encyclical Mysteriumfidei, September 3,1965, in AAS, 57 (1965), pp. 153-114, English translation in DOL, nn. 1145-1220, pp. 378-392. 78

Among the matters treated in the Instruction were the ecclesial implications of the

Eucharistic celebration (no. 7), the Eucharist as an action of Christ and the Church, the centre of the whole Christian life for both the universal and particular Church as well as for the individual faithful (nn 3 e, 6), the dispositions for the reception of Holy Communion, confession before communion especially for those conscious of grave sin and for those who receive daily (no. 35), the reception of Communion by the faithful during Mass and from hosts consecrated at that Mass (no. 31), the reception of Communion under both kinds (no.

32), daily celebration of Mass by priests (no. 44), and Masses for special groups within the parish (no. 27).

The third part of the Instruction addressed the worship of the Eucharist outside of

Mass. It treated the chapel or place of reservation of the Eucharist (no. 53), the placement of the tabernacle and means by which it is honoured and indicated (no. 54-57), the promotion of worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass including Eucharistic processions, norms governing exposition and adoration of the Eucharist (with the prohibition of the celebration of Mass during exposition) and Eucharistic congresses (nn. 58-67).

1.6 Preparations for the new Roman Missal

While the liturgical reforms were gradually being implemented by the various documents of the Holy See, the Consilium continued its work of preparing a new Rite of

Mass and a new lectionary. Various experiments were carried out in a number of different environments including small groups of clerics, religious and lay faithful, the members of the

Consilium themselves, the participants in the Synod of Bishops held in 1967, various 79 members of the Curia and even in the presence of the Pope who gave close attention to the work at hand and who made his own corrections and suggestions, insisting upon some and relenting on others.140

The Missa normativa celebrated on the occasion of the Synod of Bishops would become, with some modifications, the basis for a new Order of Mass.m At a Consistory held

140BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, pp. 337-383. According to Bugnini, Paul VI insisted on a number of elements which he desired to be preserved in a new Rite of Mass and which had been eliminated in the proposed Rite. These included 1) that every Mass begin with the sign of the cross, said aloud; 2) that the Penitential Rite be simplified to one form which would always include the Confiteor; 3) that the Offertory include prayers that express the concept of offering of human toil in union with the sacrifice of Christ with some role for the faithful; 4) that the rubrics at the beginning of the Institution Narrative remind celebrants these are to be read not in the manner of a narrative but clearly and distinctly as required by their nature; 5) that the words mysteriumfidei be spoken by the celebrant before the acclamation of faith; 6) that the rites for the greeting of peace be better organized. These in turn were received and in most cases implemented in the new Rite of Mass. In another place Bugnini employs an analogy to describe the enormity of the process at hand and declared: "But how difficult it is to take an ancient building in hand and make it functional and habitable, without changing the structure! Peripheral alterations are not enough; there has to be a radical restoration. All this applied to the Ordinary of the Mass" (p. 115).

141Bugnini noted that the response of the bishops was not entirely favorable, a reaction which he attributes in part, to the environment in which the Mass was celebrated: "It must be said flatly that the experiment was not a success and even that it had an effect contrary to the one intended and played a part in the negative vote that followed... The setting, however, was completely unsuitable. In the first place, the Sistine Chapel lends itself to elitist, not popular, celebrations.... Most important of all, the congregation was in a false position. The Fathers of the Synod had to imagine a fine assembly of ordinary people present in the hall, for it was with such a congregation in mind that the songs, rites, language and tone of the homily had been chosen.... The celebration must therefore have left many of the Fathers with the impression of something artificial, overly pedantic, and quite unparochial. Some of them thought that such a Mass could not possibly be celebrated in a parish. The very term 'normative' suggested, incorrectly, that all the parts sung in the Sistine Chapel would have to be sung always and in all circumstances in every parish. Other Fathers, accustomed to individual celebration, found this Mass to be impoverished by the omission of the priest's private prayers. Still others, incited by the dogma of the real presence, looked with concern on any reduction in gestures and genuflections and on the lengthening of the liturgy of the Word." See BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, pp. 349-350. If such comments betray a certain "elitist" turn of mind, even more astounding and revealing were those of Paul VI who, very early in the process, summarized the dispositions of those uneasy with the liturgical reforms by suggesting they lacked an appreciation of the meaning of the liturgy. In an address to a General Audience on the various reactions, the Pope castigated the sentiments of discomfort saying: "We shall not criticize these remarks because that would require showing how great a lack of understanding about religious rites they manifest. They 80 on April 28, 1969, Paul VI announced the publication of the new Order of Mass, the promulgation date being Holy Thursday, earlier that same month. The Pope explained:

The Church has an innate need to prayer that finds its preeminent expression in the Eucharistic sacrifice. That need is the abiding, pure source of all liturgical norms.... That is the context of the new Order of Mass. After the long and labourious work to simplify the rites for the beginning of Mass, the offertory, the sign of peace, and the breaking of bread, the Order of Mass should be seen as the culmination of the new structure of the Mass desired by the conciliar Fathers and designed to assist the faithful to take an ever more conscious and active part in the Eucharistic sacrifice.142

On April 3,1969, Pope Paul VI issued the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum in which he promulgated a new Roman Missal and mandated it to come into effect on the

First Sunday of Advent, November 30,1969.143 This would set the stage for the proximate history of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

do not indicate a true devotion or a genuine perception of the import of the Mass. Rather, they betray a certain spiritual laziness, the refusal to make the personal effort toward understanding and participation." The Pope suggested that a certain confusion and uneasiness are to be expected, but that these could be remedied by explanation, preparation and assistance. Reflecting an attitude that viewed the condition of the faithful prior to the reforms as passive and inactive the Pope declared: "We should not think that after a while there can be a return to the former, undisturbed devotion or apathy. No, the new way of doing things will have to be different; it will have to prevent and to shake up the passivity of the people present at Mass." See PAUL VI, Address, March 17, 1965, in L'Osservatore Romano, March 18, 1965; English translation in DOL, pp. 114-115, at p. 115.

142PAUL VI, Address, April 28,1969. in AAS, 61 (1969), pp. 425-432; English translation of excerpts in DOL, nn. 675-677, p. 238. In the same address the Pope announced changes to the structure of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (which had undergone modifications during a reform of the Curia carried out by the Pope in 1967). This change consisted of creating two separate congregations: one for divine worship and another for the causes of saints. Such an arrangement has continued in that a separate Congregation for the Causes of Saints deals exclusively with matters which had at one time been the competence of a section of the Congregation of Rites.

143PAUL VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3,1969, in AAS, 61 (1969), pp. 217-222; English translation in DOL, nn. 1357-1366, pp. 458-461. 81 1.7 Summary

From Apostolic times, concern for the proper celebration of the Eucharist has been a characteristic of ecclesial life. It has received the attention of both the highest levels of authority, both the Apostolic See and Ecumenical Councils, local bishops and synods, and even those in political authority. The regulation and moderation of the liturgy as we know today, centralized as it is under the authority of the Apostolic See, was a gradual development. The process was hastened by initiatives such as the reform of the Curia and the

creation of the Congregation for Sacred Rites. But it was also the result of the desire on the part of many to be in closer communion with the Apostolic See, following both its liturgical

praxis as well as its directives and instructions. The Congregation of Sacred Rites saw its

duty as interpreting and clarifying such norms, responding to the countless inquiries received

from throughout the world.

The Second Vatican Council initiated a reform of the liturgy with the promulgation

in December 1963 of Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the first document of the Council.

In subsequent years, extensive work was carried out to revise the rites in accord with the

principles set forth in the Constitution, culminating in new rites for the Sacraments and other

liturgical celebrations and in a new Rite of the Mass. Although numerous liturgical

competencies were entrusted to the conferences of bishops, they were conditioned by the fact

that all adaptations, translations, and versions of liturgical books require the recognitio of the

Apostolic See. Thus, the Apostolic See continues to exercise primary responsibility for the

regulation and moderation of the Sacred Liturgy of the Roman Rite. CHAPTER II

THE PROXIMATE HISTORY OF THE INSTRUCTION

Introduction

In this chapter we shall examine various liturgical questions addressed in key juridical and magisterial texts, which matters are also addressed in the Instruction Redemptionis

Sacramentum. This will provide the necessary foundations for our examination in chapter three of the Instruction itself. Our sources will primarily be juridical texts in the period that comprises the proximate history of Redemptionis Sacramentum, that is, the period from the promulgation of the new Missal in 1969 until the publication of the third edition of the

Missal in 2002 and of the Instruction in 2004. These will be supplemented by key texts of the magisterium, especially teachings of Pope John Paul U, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and its past Prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.1

We will consider the following themes: the theological significance of the Eucharist

(especially as the sacramental re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ) and the meaning of active participation; the necessity of the priesthood and the distinction of roles between the ordained ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of all the faithful; the Eucharistic

Prayer; various questions pertaining to Holy Communion (including Communion under both kinds, extraordinary ministers, Communion to non-Catholics, Communion to those in irregular marriages, Communion to the disabled and the necessary dispositions for the

'The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith played a significant role in many of the matters we shall treat. We shall also include some of Cardinal Ratzinger's personal thoughts about the liturgy which, although written at the time he was Prefect of the CDF, are not acts of the Congregation. Nevertheless, they reveal something of the mind of the man who was to become pope. 83 reception of Holy Communion); worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass; and the responsibilities associated with the regulation and moderation of the Sacred Liturgy.

While there were indeed new pastoral exigencies in this period that would require

attention, some brought about by the drawing forth of the implications of the liturgical

renewal and some as the result of new realities confronting the Church, there were common

themes and emphases that would be consistently repeated both in the immediate time

following the promulgation of the new Missal as well as during the course of the lengthy

pontificate of John Paul II. His contribution to the corpus of teachings on the liturgy is

substantial and likely will continue to be the object of study for years to come.

2.1 A New Roman Missal

With the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, Pope Paul VI promulgated a new

Roman Missal, revised by decree of the Second Vatican Council, on Holy Thursday, 1969.

The new missal took effect the First Sunday of Advent, on November 30 of that same year.2

2PAUL VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3, 1969, in AAS, 61 (1969), pp. 217-222; English translation in DOL, nn. 1357-1366, pp. 458-461. Through this Constitution the Pope sought to provide, by way of introduction, some of its more pronounced features. He paid tribute to the Roman Missal promulgated by his predecessor, Pius V, calling it one of the "admirable results" of the Council of Trent, providing priests of the Latin Rite norms for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice which had been carried to almost all parts of the world, nourishing piety in an arrangement of which the major parts traced back to the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great. He also gave a brief synopsis of the liturgical renewal which, recalling the words of Pius XII, represented an expression of God's providence and the action of the Holy Spirit within the Church, including some of the principles of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, upon which the new Missal was prepared: that the rites be revised to express more clearly the mysteries they signify; that the rite of Mass in particular be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts and the connection between them might be more clearly manifested; that the active participation of the faithful be more easily accomplished; that the treasures of the 84

In his Constitution promulgating the new Missal, the Pope recalled that, as St. Pius V had presented the Roman Missal of 1570 as an instrument of liturgical unity and an "expression of pure and reverent worship," "our own expectation in no way differs from that of our predecessor." Thus did Paul VI express the following hope:

It is that the faithful will receive the new Missal as a help toward witnessing and strengthening their unity with one another; that through the new Missal one and the same prayer in a great diversity of languages will ascend, more fragrant than any incense, to our heavenly Father, through our High Priest, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.3

The Pope concluded: "We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment."4

Scripture be opened up "so that a richer share in God's Word may be provided for the faithful;" and that the practice of concelebration be extended and a Rite drawn up and inserted into both the Roman Pontifical and the Roman Missal. The Pope then proceeded to set out in broad terms the new plan of the Missal including: a simplified Order of Mass; the addition of three new canons; the expansion of scripture readings; the modification of the proper of seasons and saints, the common of saints as well as ritual and votive Masses; an increase in the number of prayers for these Masses with the texts of older prayers drawn from ancient sources restored in such a way that each weekday of the principal liturgical seasons, Advent, Christmas, Lent and Easter would now have their own formulary.

3Ibid., AAS, pp. 221-222; DOL, no. 1365, p. 460.

4Ibid., AAS, p. 222; DOL, no. 1366, pp. 460-461. By the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, Paul VI abrogated previous law requiring use of the 1962 Missal, having expressly revoked the contrary law of his predecessors. Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to say that the Pope abolished the former rite (anymore than speaking of the Church abolishing the Sarum Rite or other historical variations of the Roman Liturgy). In correspondence to various conferences of bishops, the Holy See permitted use of the 1962 Missal (or its subsequent and emended forms) for priests who, due to age and infirmity, would find it difficult to celebrate the new Rite, but only for Masses without a congregation (See SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Instruction Constitutione Apostolica, April 3,1969, in AAS, 61 [1969], pp. 749-753; English translation inDOL, nn. 1732-1752, pp. 534-537; and idem, Notification Conferentiarum Episcopalium, October 28, 1974, in Notitiae, 10 [1974], p. 353; English translation in DOL, no. 1784, p. 549). Both the 85

In the period following the Apostolic Constitution, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, by the Decree Ordine Missae, promulgated the editio typica of the Ordo Missae as well as the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) and noted that these would replace the

Rubricae generates, Rhus servandus in celebratione et concelebratione Missae and the section De defectibus in celebratione Missae occurentibus.5 In a related Declaration, the same

Congregation described the GIRM as "an accurate resume and application of those doctrinal principles and practical norms on the Eucharist that are contained in the conciliar

Constitution Sancrosanctum concilium (December 4,1963), Paul VI's Encyclical Mysterium fidei (September 3, 1965), and the Congregation of Rites' Instruction Eucharisticum

Congregation and the Secretariat of State noted that no one could claim the right to use the 1962 Missal on the basis of the provisions of the Bull Quo primum nor on account of immemorial custom (See SECRETARIAT OF STATE, Letter, October 11, 1975, in Notitiae, 12 [1976], pp. 81-83; English translation in DOL, nn. 1785-1786, pp. 550-551). It is clear that the Holy See intended the new form of the Mass to replace the 1962 Missal save for certain exceptions. In 1984 a Circular Letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship to the presidents of the episcopal conferences extended the permission to the rest of the Latin Church and stipulated that the celebrations had to be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.(See Circular Letter Quattuor abhinc annos, October 3, 1984, in AAS, 76 [1984], pp.1088-1089; English translation in Origins, 14 [1984-1985], p. 290). Four years later, the Pope widened this authorization even further through his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei afflicta. He declared: "Morever, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962" (See JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei afflicta, July 2, 1988 in AAS, 80 [1988], pp. 1495-1498, at p. 1498; English translation in Origins, 18 [1988-1989], pp. 149-152). Pope Benedict XVI extended these provisions with the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, designating it as the "extraordinary form" of the Roman Rite (See BENEDICT XVI, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, in AAS, 99 [2007], pp. 777-781; English translation in Origins, 37 [2007-2008], pp. 129- 132).

5SACRED CONGREGATION OF RITES, Decree Ordine Missae, April 6, 1969, in Notitiae, 5 (1969), p. 147; English translation in DOL, no. 1367. 86 mysterium (May 25, 1967).6 The Declaration further described the GIRM not primarily as a dogmatic document but one that is pastoral, a ritual instruction containing an outline of the celebration and its parts in light of the doctrinal principles enunciated in the documents noted. The goal of the Instruction is to provide guidelines for the catechesis of the faithful and to offer the main features for the Eucharistic celebration to be used by those who take part in the celebration according to their different orders and ranks. From now on, the GIRM would appear in the opening pages of the Missal. Opening the door to a continual reappraisal of the text and the matters addressed in the GIRM, the Declaration concludes: "In view of what has been said, the Apostolic See will see to any clarification of language that may be needed for a better pastoral and catechetical understanding and for improving rubrics."7

Clearly, the Holy See was giving acknowledgement to the fact that the new liturgical norms on the Eucharist would be capable of ongoing reappraisal and even future revision.

6SACRED CONGREGATION OF RITES, Declaration Institutio generalis Missalis romani, November 18,1969, inNotitiae, 5 (1969), pp. 417-418; English translation in DOL, nn. 1368-1370, pp. 204-205.

7Ibid., Notitiae, p. 418; DOL, no. 1370. Less than one year following the presentation of the GIRM, the same Congregation issued what it described as minor and stylistic changes and emendations. It noted that, upon its presentation, the GIRM was the object of a number of different doctrinal and rubrical comments. Regarding the complaints of those who regarded the new form of the Mass as weakening Catholic doctrine, the Congregation noted: "Some complaints, however, were based on prejudice against anything new; these were not deemed worth considering because they are groundless: a review of the General Instruction both before and after its publication by the Fathers and periti of the Consilium found no reason for changing the arrangement of the material or any error in doctrine" (See SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Presentation Edita Instructione, in Notitiae, 6 [1970], p. 177; English translation in DOL, no. 1371, pp. 462-463). In fact, corrections to the GIRM were necessary as the result of the suppression of the subdiaconate on December 23,1972. A new edition was issued on the occasion of the publication of the second editio typica of the Roman Missal, March 27, 1975. Changes to the GIRM were next made following the promulgation of the revised Code. A major revision of the GIRM would be made when the third editio typica of the Roman Missal was promulgated on April 20, 2000. 87

In fact, from the output of documents in the period following the promulgation of the new

Missal until the presentation of the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, it is obvious that the work of liturgical renewal would continue, that new pastoral needs as they presented themselves would require new initiatives and norms, and that, very often, a more effective clarification of the theological and pastoral underpinnings of the current liturgical legislation would be necessary.

Less than one year from the coming into effect of the new Missal, the Sacred

Congregation for Divine Worship issued the Instruction Liturgicae instaurationes. This was the third Instruction on the correct application of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.8

The Instruction sought to draw out the salient features of the new Missal and, in this way, emphasize more positively the value inherent in the faithful observance of its norms. It was as much an effort to illuminate the values inherent in these norms as simply proscribing

certain contrary practices.

Seeking to safeguard the liturgy's sacred character, the Instruction noted that the

simplification of the rites of the Church had nothing to do with "desacralization" or

"secularization," as these would have the effect of depriving the rites of their efficacy. Far

from diminishing their sacred character, the reforms were intended to enhance their dignity

8SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Instruction Liturgicae instaurationes, September 5, 1970, in AAS, 62 (1970), pp. 692-704; English translation in DOL, nn.509-531, pp. 159-167. Whereas the first two Instructions (Inter oecumenici and Tres abhinc annos) represented the gradual process of introducing reforms, this Instruction had as its goal to "enjoin observance of liturgical discipline." See MCMANUS, art. "Liturgical Reform of Vatican II," in NDSW, p. 1093. McManus says that this Instruction appeared "to inhibit regional adaptations, especially adaptations of the Roman missal, which had just been completed." 88 and sacred character as well as instilling a spirit of reverence (no. 1). The Instruction declared:

The effectiveness of the liturgy does not lie in experimenting with rites and altering them over and over, nor in a continuous reductionism, but solely in entering more deeply into the Word of God and the mystery being celebrated. It is the presence of these two that authenticates the Church's rites, not what some priest decides, including his own preference (no. 1).

2.2 Doctrinal Concerns

A doctrine repeatedly emphasized in ecclesiastical documents of this period is the

sacrificial nature of the Mass. This fundamental doctrine is related to other principal

teachings of the Church such as the distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the

priesthood of all the baptized and the hierarchical nature of the Church, which is reflected in

the diverse roles, ministries, and modes of active participation in the liturgy. These

fundamental teachings underpin numerous church laws regulating the celebration of the

Eucharist.

From the very beginning of this period, there was concern to emphasize the meaning

of the Mass as the renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross. In a heading entitled, "Witness to

Unchanged Faith," the introductory section of the GIRM seeks to strengthen the connection

between the teaching of the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council, a teaching

considered as having been reaffirmed and highlighted by the new liturgical norms.

The sacrificial nature of the Mass was solemnly proclaimed by the Council of Trent in agreement with the whole tradition of the Church. Vatican Council II reaffirmed this teaching .... The Council's teaching is expressed constantly in the formularies of the Mass.... In this new Missal, then, the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to its constant rule of faith (lex credendi). This rule of faith instructs 89

us that the sacrifice of the cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ instituted at the Last Supper and commanded his apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of offering and that consequently the Mass is at once a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, of reconciliation and expiation.9

Furthermore, the Preamble renews the teaching that, in this Sacrifice, the real presence of

Christ in the bread and wine is effected, calling forth an attitude of reverence as also the practice of Eucharistic adoration.

The celebration of Mass also proclaims the sublime mystery of the Lord's presence under the Eucharistic elements, which Vatican II and other documents of the Church's magisterium have reaffirmed in the same sense and as the same teaching of the Council of Trent had proposed as a matter of faith. The Mass does this not only by means of the very words of consecration, by which Christ becomes present through transubstantiation, but also by that spirit and expression of reverence and adoration in which the Eucharistic liturgy is carried out. For the same reason the Christian people are invited in Holy Week on Holy Thursday and on the solemnity of Corpus Christi to honour this wonderful Sacrament in a special way by their adoration (no. 3).

As noted by some commentators: "The Preamble was added by Paul VI to address some of the complaints that the new Order of Mass was not in continuity with tradition. It speaks

insistently of the sacrificial nature of the Mass."10

This emphasis on the theological meaning of the Eucharist is given further juridical

expression in the revised Code of Canon Law. In the two foundational canons that introduce

the subject of the Blessed Eucharist, fundamental doctrines are enunciated, holding together

9GERM, no. 2. During the course of this study, when referring to documents produced in the period leading to the promulgation of the third typical edition of the Roman Missal in 2002, quotations of the previous edition of the GIRM will be taken from the translation prepared by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and printed in 1983. In the third chapter, treating matters after 2002 and, in particular, with reference to RS, the text employed will be that prepared by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and which has received the necessary recognitio.

10D. POWER and C. VlNClE, "Theological and Pastoral Reflections," in GIRM Commentary, p. 56. 90 in singular definitions the major theological content of the Eucharist. Whereas the 1917 Code treated the subject of the Holy Eucharist in two chapters, the first being the sacrifice of the

Mass and the second the sacrament of the Eucharist, the 1983 Code emphasizes the Eucharist in its different dimensions of sacramental sacrifice, communion and presence under a single heading, or title.11 Thus, c. 897 states:

The most August sacrament is the blessed Eucharist, in which Christ the Lord himself is contained, offered and received, and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The Eucharistic Sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the Sacrifice of the cross is for ever perpetuated, is the summit and the source of all worship and Christian life....

While the first canon in the section on the Eucharist provides some doctrinal foundations, the second, c. 898, outlines the appropriate response of the faithful to this mystery, including participation in the sacrifice, frequent reception of Holy Communion and adoration.

Christ's faithful are to hold the blessed Eucharist in the highest honour: They should take an active part in the celebration of the most August Sacrifice; they should receive the sacrament with great devotion and frequently, and should reverence it with the greatest adoration....

Ten years after the promulgation of the new Missal, at the very beginning of his pontificate, Pope John Paul II wrote his first encyclical Letter, Redemptor hominis. In no. 20

1'A. MARZOA, "Commentary on Title III, The Blessed Eucharist," inAnnotated Code, p. 695. In fact, the Code seeks to hold together these three dimensions of sacrifice, communion and adoration. According to another commentator: "The systematic arrangement of the subject in the corresponding title of the CIC is a reflection of the theological emphasis indicated by Vatican Council II and by the most recent magisterium. The Council affirms the organic unity between the sacrifice and the Eucharistic banquet, and the active participation of the faithful in the Mass as a consequence of the theological nature of the Eucharist (SC 47-48).... For these theological reasons, the Code deals with all aspects of the Eucharist under one single title: its first chapter is devoted to the Eucharistic celebration which is the sacrifice, of which the Communion is part (cc. 934-944), and the third objective is the offering given by the celebration of the Mass (cc. 945-958)." (See P. ERDO, "Commentary on Title III, The Blessed Eucharist," in Exegetical Commentary, pp. 562-563.) 91 of the encyclical, the Pope explores the various theological dimensions of the Eucharistic doctrine.

In the mystery of the Redemption, that is to say in Jesus Christ's saving work, the Church not only shares in the Gospel of her Master through fidelity to the word and service of truth, but she also shares through a submission filled with hope and love, in the power of his redeeming action expressed and enshrined by him in a sacramental form, especially the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the centre and summit of the whole of sacramental life, through which each Christian receives the saving power of the Redemption, beginning with the mystery of Baptism, in which we are buried into the death of Christ, in order to become sharers in his Resurrection, as the Apostle teaches. In the light of this teaching, we see still more clearly the reason why the entire sacramental life of the Church and of each Christian reaches its summit and fullness in the Eucharist. For by Christ's will there is in this Sacrament a continual renewing of the mystery of the Sacrifice of himself that Christ offered to the Father on the altar of the Cross.... It is at one and the same time a sacrifice- sacrament, a communion-sacrament, and a presence-sacrament. And, although it is true that the Eucharist always was and must continue to be the most profound revelation of the human brotherhood of Christ's disciples and confessors, it cannot be treated merely as an "occasion" for manifesting this brotherhood. When celebrating the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, the full magnitude of the divine mystery must be respected, as must the full meaning of this sacramental sign in which Christ is really present and is received, "the soul is filled with grace and the pledge of future glory is given." This is the source of the duty to carry out rigorously the liturgical rules and everything that is a manifestation of community worship offered to God.12

Less than one year later, in a Letter to bishops of the Church On the Mystery and

Worship of the Eucharist Dominicae cenae, Pope John Paul II recalled some important matters regarding the celebration of the Eucharist as also the worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass.13 In the second section, entitled "The Sacred Character of the Eucharist and

Sacrifice," he explained that this sacral character is not something man could add since it is

12 JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis, March 4, 1979, in AAS, 71 (1979), pp. 257-324; English translation Encyclical Redemptor Hominis Addressed by the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II to His Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, the Priests, the Religious Families, the Sons and Daughters of the Church and to All Men and Women of Good Will, at the Beginning of His Papal Ministry, Ottawa, CCCB, 1979.

13JOHN PAUL II, Letter to Bishops Dominicae cenae, February 24, 1980, in AAS, 72 (1980), pp. 113-148; English translation in Origins, 9 (1979-1980), pp. 653-666. 92 already "a sacred rite, a primary and constitutive liturgy, through which Christ, by pledging to give His life for us, Himself celebrated sacramentally the mystery of His passion and resurrection, the heart of every Mass." In this context, and in light of the history of the development of Eucharistic rites, the Letter states:

Our Masses, being derived from this liturgy, possess of themselves a complete liturgical form, which, in spite of its variations in line with the families of rites remains substantially the same. The sacred character of the Mass is a sacredness instituted by Christ. The words and actions of every priest, answered by the conscious active participation of the whole Eucharistic assembly, echo the words and actions of Holy Thursday....

This sacred rite, which is actuated in different liturgical forms, may lack some secondary elements, but it can in no way lack its essential sacred character and sacramentality, since these are willed by Christ and transmitted and regulated by the Church. Neither can this sacred rite be utilized for other ends. If separated from its distinctive sacrificial and sacramental nature, the Eucharistic Mystery simply ceases to be. It admits of no "profane" imitation, an imitation that would very easily (indeed regularly) become a profanation. This must always be remembered, perhaps above all in our time, when we see a tendency to do away with the distinction between the "sacred" and "profane," given the widespread tendency, at least in some places, to desacralize everything (no. 8).

The Letter recalled the duty of the Church to safeguard and strengthen the sacred character of the Eucharist and to pay attention to the terminology of theology and liturgy that draws out this sacred character. The Pope exhorted ministers of the Eucharist to be illumined by the fullness of this living faith and perform their ministry in accord with Christ's will and the will of His Church.14

In the second portion of this second part of the Letter, the Pope recalled the significant

aspects of Catholic doctrine concerning the Eucharist as sacrifice, noting that different prayers and rites within the Mass help to highlight this sacrificial character. Among these

14Ibid. Again, we shall see this emphasis upon proper terminology when it comes to the exploration of the role of the lay faithful in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, especially in relation to those functions considered extraordinary. 93 are the offertory procession, the prayer over the gifts and the invitation Orate fratres, which must be said because "they express the character of the entire Eucharistic Liturgy and the fullness of its divine and ecclesial content."15 In addition, the Pope recalled that the sacrifice is effected by means of the twofold but separate consecration of the bread and the wine:

"Thus, by virtue of the consecration, the species of bread and wine re-present in a

sacramental, unbloody manner the bloody propitiatory sacrifice offered by Him on the cross

to His Father for the salvation of the world" (no. 9).

The Pope drew attention to how the sacrificial character is re-echoed in a number of

the phrases and petitions found throughout the Eucharistic Prayer. While all of this is

performed by the priest, the Letter explains that the faithful have an important role, citing

GIRM, no. 55: "The Church's intention is that the faithful not only offer the spotless victim

but also learn to offer themselves and daily to be drawn into ever more perfect union, through

Christ the Mediator, with the Father and with each other, so that at last God may be all in

all." The Letter urged "a new and intense education" to draw out these rich truths which had

been given greater prominence since the Second Vatican Council. Among the means of

highlighting these truths concerning the Mass as Sacrifice is the fact that, with the reform of

the liturgy, the words of the Eucharistic Prayer are said aloud and that the Memorial

Acclamation allows the assembly a means of expressing their faith in this reality.

"Ibid., no. 9. Bugnini recalls that, in his study of the Missa normativa, Paul VI asked: "Should the Orate, fratres be removed? Is it not a beautiful, ancient, and appropriate dialogue between celebrant and congregation before beginning the prayer over the gifts and the sacrificial liturgy? Its removal would be the loss of a pearl" (See BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, p. 379). 94

Eucharistic worship matures and grows when the words of the Eucharistic Prayer, especially the words of consecration, are spoken with great humility and simplicity, in a worthy and fitting way, which is understandable and in keeping with their holiness; when this essential act of the Eucharistic Liturgy is performed unhurriedly; and when it brings about in us such recollection and devotion that the participants become aware of the greatness of the mystery being accomplished and show it by their attitude (no. 9).

This emphasis upon the Eucharist as the renewal and re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ and as the exercise of the priesthood of Christ serves to remedy any reduction of the

Eucharist to a fraternal meal, something that would be repeated by John Paul II on a number of occasions. On December 4,1988, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the promulgation of the

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the Pope issued the Apostolic Letter Vicesimus quintus

annus to mark this milestone.16 The Pope revisited some of the guiding principles of the

Constitution, including the liturgy as a re-enactment of the Paschal Mystery (SC, no. 6), the

different modes of Christ's presence, especially in the Eucharistic celebration (SC, no. 7), the

presence and importance of the Sacred Scripture (SC, no. 8), and the ecclesial nature of the

liturgy (SC, no. 9). This latter he calls an "epiphany of the Church," that is, a manifestation

16JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Vicesimus quintus annus, December 4, 1988, in AAS, 81 (1989), pp. 897-918; English translation in Origins, 19 (1989-1990), pp. 17-25. The Pope also marked the fortieth anniversary of Sancrosanctum concilium with his Apostolic Letter Spiritus et Sponsa. This was a more reflective and spiritual treatment of the liturgical renewal as well as a consideration of its future prospects. As for the work of renewal, the Pope reiterated the need for ongoing formation: "It is more necessary than ever to intensify liturgical life within our communities by means of an appropriate formation of pastors and of all the faithful, with a view to the active, conscious and full participation in liturgical celebrations desired by the council." The Pope explained: "The liturgy offers the deepest and most effective answer to the yearning for the encounter with God." He also called for the development of a liturgical spirituality that makes people aware that "Christ is the first 'liturgist' who never ceases to act in the Church and in the world through the Paschal Mystery continuously celebrated, and who associates the Church with himself, in praise of the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit." (See JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Spiritus et Sponsa, December 4, 2003, in AAS, 96 (2004), pp. 419-427; English translation in Origins, 33 [2003-2004], p. 541 and pp. 543-546, at p. 544, p. 545 and p. 546.) 95 of her unity, her holiness, her catholicity and her apostolic character.17

The Letter explained that the norms that have guided the liturgical renewal derived from these principles, among them, that the liturgy is the exercise of the priesthood of Christ.

"Nothing of what we do in the liturgy can appear more important than what in an unseen but real manner Christ accomplished by the power of his Spirit." As a consequence, one of the most important dispositions for worship is a faith which is "alive in charity, adoration, praise of the Father and silent contemplation," and this must be "the prime objective of liturgical

and pastoral care" (no. 10).

In an Ad limina address to bishops from the Northwest sector of the United States,

Pope John Paul II invited them to consider, especially in view of the preparations for the

Great Jubilee and the centrality of the liturgy in the Christian life, the strengths and

weaknesses of the past thirty years of liturgical renewal. The Pope called upon the bishops

and, through them, all the faithful, to see the liturgy in its fullest dimensions, so as to

cultivate a sense of awe, reverence and adoration, which he describes as "fundamental

attitudes in our relationship with God."

The universal Church is united in the one great act of praise; but it is always the worship of a particular community in a particular culture. It is the eternal worship of heaven, but it is also steeped in time. It gathers and builds a human community, but it is also "the worship of the divine majesty" (SC, no. 33). It is subjective in that it depends radically upon what the worshippers bring to it; but it is objective in that it transcends them as the priestly act of Christ himself, to which he associates us but which ultimately does not depend upon us (SC, no. 7).18

The Address recalled why it is necessary that liturgical law be respected and observed,

"Vicesimus quintus annus, no. 9.

18 JOHN PAUL II, Ad limina Address to American Bishops of the Northwestern Region, October 9, 1998, in AAS, 91 (1999), pp. 351-356 at p. 352. 96 especially by the priest "who is the servant of the liturgy, not its inventor or producer," but who "has a particular responsibility in this regard lest he empty the liturgy of its true meaning or obscure its sacred character."

The core of the mystery of Christian worship is the sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father and the work of the risen Christ who sanctifies his people through liturgical signs. It is therefore essential that in seeking to enter more deeply into the contemplative depths of worship, the inexhaustible mystery of the priesthood of Jesus Christ be fully acknowledged and respected.19

In the same Ad limina address, the Pope spelt out a number of the consequences of this fundamental truth. These include, firstly, the difference between the priesthood of all the baptized and the unique role of the ministerial priesthood and, secondly, the nature of the participation of the faithful as called for by the liturgical renewal in general and by the

Second Vatican Council in particular.

While all the baptized share in that one priesthood of Christ, not all share in it in the same manner. The ministerial priesthood, rooted in apostolic succession, confers upon the ordained priest faculties and responsibilities which are different from those of the laity but which are at the service of the common priesthood and are directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1547). The priest is not just one who presides, but one who acts in the person of Christ.

Only by being radically faithful to this doctrinal foundation can we avoid one- dimensional and unilateral interpretations of the council's teaching. The sharing of all the baptized in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the council's call for "full, conscious and active participation" in the liturgy (Sacrosanctum concilium, no. 14). Full participation certainly means that every member of the community has a part to play in the liturgy; and in this respect a great deal has been achieved in parishes and communities.... But full participation does not mean that everyone does everything, since this would lead to a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing of the priesthood; and this was not what the council had in mind. The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic,

19Ibid. 97 respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise.20

In his theological reflections upon the Sacred Liturgy, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger addresses the meaning of "active participation." Speaking of the term participatio actuosa,21

Ratzinger explores its meaning in the context of what the central action of the Eucharistic liturgy consists, which is the key to avoiding a superficial understanding of such participation. He suggests that, "Unfortunately, the word was very quickly misunderstood to mean something external, entailing a need for general activity as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action."22 He notes that the principal action in the liturgy is not what we do but, in fact, what God does: "The uniqueness

of the Eucharistic liturgy lies precisely in the fact that God himself is acting and that we are

drawn into that action of God. Everything else is, therefore, secondary." Consequently,

"Doing must really stop when we come to the heart of the matter: the oratio. It must be

20Ibid., pp. 352-353. The Pope examines the various means of active participation, including gesture, word, song and service, while accentuating the need for the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening. "In a culture which neither favours nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be countercultural." For such an authentic and conscious participation to be promoted requires that the entire community be properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy. It also requires the cultivation of the subconscious experience "which is vital in a liturgy which thrives on symbols that speak to the subconscious just as they speak to the conscious" (ibid., pp. 353-354). 21This is a phrase which, as we have noted in the first chapter, first appeared in the Motu proprio Tra le solicitudini and originally referred to the restoration of congregational singing of Gregorian chant. It was incorporated into SC, no. 14 which stated: "In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else." It would become the watchword of the post-conciliar liturgical renewal.

'Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 171. 98 plainly evident that the oratio is the heart of the matter, but that it is important precisely because it provides a space for the actio of God."23

Critiquing a certain activism current in some quarters, Ratzinger comments: "The almost theatrical entrance of different players into the liturgy, which is so common today, especially during the Preparation of the Gifts, quite simply misses the point. If the various external actions (as a matter of fact, there are not very many of them, though they are being artificially multiplied) become the essential in the liturgy, if the liturgy degenerates into general activity, then we have radically misunderstood the 'theo-drama' of the liturgy and lapsed almost into parody."24 He urges that authentic liturgical formation and education does not consist of "learning and experimenting with external activities" but with leading people

"toward the essential actio that makes the liturgy what it is, toward the transforming power of God...."25 This is consistent with the exhortation of John Paul II to American Bishops to encourage an active participation that embraces silence and listening and allows room for the impact of the subconscious.

These insights, together with the concerns raised by John Paul JJ that "full participation does not mean that everyone does everything" and which could lead to "a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing of the priesthood," become the appropriate place from which to treat another of the major themes addressed in this period, one that would have profound implications for the celebration of the liturgy, especially the Eucharistic Sacrifice,

23Ibid., p. 174.

24Ibid., pp. 174-175.

25Ibid., p. 175. 99 and which, through distortions and misconceptions, would inevitably lead to abuses in the celebration of the Mass. This theme is the necessity of the ordained priest in the celebration of the Eucharist and the need to clarify the distinction between the role of the ordained and the lay faithful in the life and mission of the Church, especially in the celebration of the liturgy.

2.3 Clarifying Roles: Priesthood and Laity

Throughout his pontificate, John Paul II emphasized the absolute necessity of the ordained ministerial priesthood in the celebration of the Eucharist as also the provisional and extraordinary character of some of the liturgical ministries to which the lay faithful might be admitted. While both the common priesthood of all the baptized and the ministerial priesthood are ordered one to the other, nevertheless, the differences between the two touch upon the very mystery of the Eucharist which is brought into being not by the action of the community, but in virtue of a ministerial priesthood which was instituted at the Last Supper to provide the Eucharist for the faithful.26

While it is true that the subject of the liturgical celebration is the assembly and not exclusively the priest (bishop or presbyter), one should be cautious in the use of such terminology. For the liturgy is not only a celebration of one particular assembly, turned in on itself. This assembly belongs to the particular Church of which it is a part, and the particular Church is part of the Church universal {Ecclesia universa) which existed prior to any of its particular manifestations. (See CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Communionis notio, May 28,1992, in AAS, 85 [1993], pp. 838-850; English translation in Origins, 22 [1992-1993], pp. 108-112.) Hence, the names of the pope and the diocesan bishop are mentioned in the Eucharistic Prayer. Furthermore, the assembly is united in its offering together with that assembly known in traditional language as the Church suffering and the Church triumphant. An overt emphasis on "the assembly" to the detriment of these dimensions can lead to distortions and misconceptions. For an example of such a tendency, see L. MALDONADO, "Liturgy as Communal Enterprise," in G. ALBERIGO et al., The 100

In his Letter to bishops, Dominicae cenae, John Paul II recalled the fundamental relationship between the ordained ministerial priesthood and the Eucharist. In the first section of the Letter entitled, "The Eucharistic Mystery in the life of the Church and of the Priest," the Pope reflected upon the profound relationship between the ministerial, hierarchical priesthood and the Eucharist, especially since the priesthood came into being at the

Institution of the Eucharist, the celebration of which is its principal raison d'etre. He noted that priests and bishops, in view of the care they should have for all the churches (2 Cor

11:28), bear a most important responsibility for the Eucharist entrusted to them for the

benefit of others, who should be able to expect from them veneration and love for the

Eucharist since it is by the Eucharist that they are built up and vivified. This veneration and

love should manifest itself in both the celebration of the Eucharist and in devotion to the

Blessed Sacrament (no. 2).

The 1983 Code, in its description of the celebration of the Eucharist, presents the

Eucharistic liturgy as an action of Christ and also of the Church. Specifically, it is a work of

Christ accomplished through the ministry of the priest.

The celebration of the Eucharist is an action of Christ himself and of the Church. In it Christ the Lord, through the ministry of the priest, offers himself, substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine, to God the Father, and gives himself as spiritual nourishment to the faithful who are associated with him in his offering (c. 899, §1).

While attributing a most significant role to the ordained priest in the offering of the Eucharist,

the Code nevertheless accords to all the people of God an important part in this offering.

Reception of Vatican II, translated by M. O'CONNELL, Washington, The Catholic University of America Press, 1987, pp. 309-323. 101

In the Eucharistic assembly the people of God are called together under the presidency of the bishop or of a priest authorized by him, who acts in the person of Christ. All the faithful present, whether clerics or lay people, unite to participate in their own way, according to their various orders and liturgical roles (c. 899, §2).

For this reason, the very ordering of the Eucharistic liturgy is meant to facilitate the fruits and benefits of the offering. According to c. 897, §3, 'The Eucharistic celebration is to be so ordered that all the participants derive from it the many fruits for which Christ the Lord instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice."27 Canon 900 states that the minister capable, in the person of Christ, of bringing into being the Eucharist, is solely a validly ordained priest. This might seem like stating the obvious but, in view of certain opinions, it seemed necessary to recall the Catholic doctrine.

On August 6,1983, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent a letter to the bishops entitled Sacerdotium ministeriale.2* In presenting the Letter, the Prefect, Cardinal

27Among the consequences of such ordering is that, in making use of the various options allowed, "the criterion to be observed in making choices is the greatest good of the faithful" while at the same time, in the carrying out of prescriptive norms, "One must observe with both precision and thoughtfulness all things which are prescribed without options being given." (See A. MARZOA, Annotated Code, p. 697.) As for the distinction in roles between the bishop (or a priest under his authority) and all the faithful, another commentator explains: "The bishop or the priest who is under his authority, while in the celebration, acts in the person of Christ." In fact, the priests are "endowed with the authority that comes to them from Christ the Head and Shepherd. They are placed-with their ministry- before the Church as a visible extension and sacramental symbol of Christ, who also stands before the Church and the world as a permanent and ever new source of salvation, He who is 'the saviour of his Body' (Eph. 5,23)" (PDV16). The priest represents the people in the Eucharist only because he acts in persona Christi in as much as he is the head of all its members." See P. ERDO, Exegetical Commentary, p. 574 (PDV= JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Pastores dabo vobis, March 25, 1992, in A4S, 84 [1992], pp. 657-804).

. 28CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter to Bishops Sacerdotium ministeriale, August 6, 1983, mAAS, 75 (1983), pp. 1001-1009; English translation in Origins, 13 (1983), pp. 229-233. The same Congregation would also address a letter to the Dutch theologian Edward Schillebeeckx concerning his book, Ministry: Leadership in the Communion of Jesus Christ, in which he claims that, in the first millennium of the Church's life, in exceptional cases, particular communities had the necessary resources to remedy the lack of ordinary ministers. It called upon him 102

Joseph Ratzinger, explained its purpose as endeavouring to sustain the "shepherds of the

People of God" in responding to opinions regarding essential points of doctrine on the minister of the Eucharist, especially the contention that the power to celebrate the Eucharist does not absolutely require sacramental ordination conferred through the imposition of the bishop's hands. According to the proponents of such a view, this could open the way to remedying the shortage of priests as well as providing communities deprived of the

celebration of the Eucharist with suitable ministers. The Letter declared that such views are

"absolutely incompatible with the faith as it has been handed down" (sect. Ill, no. 1).

According to the proscribed theory, every Christian community, in virtue of its unity

in the name of Christ, enjoys His undivided presence and is endowed with all the powers

which the Lord intended to give the Church, including the power to raise up priests to preside

over the Eucharist and conferring on them all the necessary faculties for leading the

community, including presiding over and consecrating the Eucharist. The Letter explained

that such conclusions flow from an understanding of the Eucharist as primarily an action of

the local community which gathers to commemorate in the Breaking of Bread, the Last

Supper of the Lord. This reduces the Eucharist to "a fraternal celebration in which the

community comes together and gives expression to its identity" rather than being in actual

fact "the sacramental renewal of the sacrifice of Christ, whose saving power extends to

everyone, be they present or absent, living or dead" (II, 3).

Such a point of view, whatever its different variations, leads to the conclusion that

"the power to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist is not necessarily connected with

to publicly acknowledge his adherence to contents of the aforementioned letter to the bishops. 103 sacramental ordination," a conclusion that is "absolutely incompatible with the faith as it has been handed down." It denies the power conferred upon priests at ordination, the entire apostolic structure of the Church and the very sacramental economy of salvation itself. The

Letter continued: "Since it is of the very nature of the Church that the power to consecrate the Eucharist is imparted only to the bishops and priests who are constituted its ministers by the reception of Holy Orders, the Church holds that the Eucharistic mystery cannot be celebrated in any community except by an ordained priest...." (Ill, 4).

As for those local communities deprived of the Eucharist, whether for long or short periods and whether on account of persecution or due to a shortage of priests, they are still

intimately and truly united with the Church even in their desire for sacramental union with the Church. To seek remedies apart from the authority of the Church would have serious consequences. The Letter warned: "Catholics who attempt to celebrate the Eucharist outside

the sacred bond of apostolic succession established by the Sacrament of Orders exclude

themselves from participating in the unity of the single Body of the Lord; they neither nourish

nor build up the community, they tear it apart."29

It is for this reason that c. 900 should be read in conjunction with c. 1378 which

prescribes penalties to be imposed for whoever attempts to celebrate the Mass and is not an

29Ibid., no. IV. The day after the release of this Letter (September 8, 1983), the Pope, in an Ad limina address to American Bishops, commented: "Just the other day, with my approval, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a Letter to the bishops of the Church, reiterated the vital role of the priest as the minister of the Eucharist. Only the priesthood can furnish the Eucharist to God's people. And only priests have the wonderful opportunity to serve God's people by supplying them with the bread of life." The Pope urged the bishops to strengthen the priests in their identity as ministers of the Eucharist, recalling the words of the Decree on the Life of Priests, Presbyterorum ordinis: "Priests fulfill their chief duty in the mystery of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In it the work of our redemption continues to be carried out." See JOHN PAUL II, Address, Ad limina, September 9, 1983, in AAS, 76 (1984), pp. 106-110, at pp. 107-108. 104 ordained priest. This is the crime of simulation. A deacon who attempts to do so is punished with a suspension latae sententiae, and a lay person by interdict. The offence is now reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith according to the provisions of the Apostolic

Letter Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.30

The role of the lay faithful in the life and mission of the Church received considerable attention during the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops held November 24 to December 8,1985 to mark the twentieth anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council.31 In the concluding document of the extraordinary Synod, the synodal fathers address two aspects of

30In fact, some of the most serious abuses concerning the Most Holy Eucharist and also the Sacrament of Penance were the subject of the Motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela. Although dated April 30, 2001, in order to predate the Circular Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (= CDF) on May 18, 2001, it was not published until November 5,2001 in AAS, 93 (2001), pp. 737-739 (= SST). It determined that procedural norms relating to more serious offences are promulgated and come into effect the date of promulgation. However, the accompanying procedural norms were not published in the Acta and were never made public officially, although unofficial translations were made readily available. A number of the offences covered by the Motu proprio relate to the celebration of the Eucharist and are, for the most part, already listed in Book VI of the Code of Canon Law. The CDF's Circular Letter Ad exsequendam ecclesiasticam legem (May 18, 2001, in AAS, 93 [2001], pp. 785-788) builds on previous legislative documents, such as a March 16, 1962 Instruction on the processing of cases of solicitation and homosexuality. It determines that a number of delicts in matters relating to the celebration of the sacraments and to morals are reserved exclusively to it. Canon 1362, §1,1° provides indirectly for such cases when speaking of the time periods for prescription of delicts reserved to the CDF. The Circular Letter does not change the nature of the delict but provides for the way in which such canonical crimes are to be processed. Five of the reserved delicts indicated in the Letter have to do with the Most Holy Eucharist: the profanation of the Sacred Species; attempting to celebrate the Eucharist by a person not in Holy Orders; the simulation of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist; concelebration of the Eucharist with a minister of an ecclesial community which does not have the Apostolic Succession and which does not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination; the consecration, for a sacrilegious purpose, of one of the Eucharistic species without the other in the Eucharistic celebration, or of both outside the Eucharistic celebration.

3'It was also the main topic of the Synod on the Laity held in the Fall of 1987. This in turn would lead some ten years later to the inter-dicasterial Instruction on certain questions regarding the collaboration of non-ordained faithful in the ministry of priests, Ecclesiae de mysterio (to be cited and discussed below). 105 the liturgical renewal, the proper meaning of "active participation" and the need to correct abuses by providing ongoing liturgical formation. As to the former, the document states:

The liturgical renewal is the most visible fruit of the whole conciliar effort. Even if there have been some difficulties, it has generally been received joyfully and fruitfully by the faithful. The liturgical renewal cannot be limited to ceremonies, rites, texts, etc. The active participation so happily increased after the Council does not consist only in external activity, but above all in interior and spiritual participation, in living and fruitful participation in the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ (SC 11). It is evident that the liturgy must favour the sense of the sacred and make it shine forth. It must be permeated by the spirit of reverence, adoration and the glory of God.32

As for the latter, the correction of abuses, the synod saw that liturgical formation as the most effective way to prevent them. v

The bishops should not merely correct abuses but should also clearly explain to everyone the theological foundation of the sacramental discipline and of the liturgy. Catechesis must once again become paths leading into liturgical life (mystagogical catechesis) as was the case in the Church's beginnings. Future priests should learn liturgical life in a practical way and know liturgical theology well.33

Two years later, the Seventh General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops gathered together to discuss the role and mission of the laity within the life of the Church. The lineamenta indicated that among the topics to be addressed would be the role of the laity in the liturgical life of the Church. It called for the careful consideration of the exercise of the non-ordained ministries as well as defining the differences between the tasks commonly

assumed by the laity and those of ordained ministers.34 The identification of these differences

32EXTRAORDINARY SYNOD OF BISHOPS, "Final Report," in Origins, 15 (1985-1986), pp. 444- 450, at p. 448.

33Ibid.

34GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS, Lineamenta in preparation for the Seventh General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, April 28,1987, in Origins, 17 (1987-1988), pp. 1-19, at p. 11. c

106 would only be possible after outlining the essential connotations and characteristics of

Church ministry entrusted to the laity. Among the questions to be addressed: "Who can authorize the creation of such ministries within the Church? What ought to be the manner of entrusting the laity with non-ordained ministries (a liturgical rite or simply by a juridical act)?

What ought to be the duration of such ministries and the manner of discontinuing them?"35

Regarding the role of the laity in the celebration of the liturgy, the Lineamenta offered a liturgical foundation for the Christian life as well as the apostolate of the laity: "The

Eucharistic sacrifice, the source and summit of the entire Christian life, must occupy the central place in the lives of the laity. The laity participate actively in the holy Eucharist both

when they are involved in its celebration and when they offer to God all their daily activity

and unite their work of charity with the sacrifice of Christ."36

The Synod took place in October of 1987 with the theme, "The Vocation and Mission

of the Laity in the Church and in the World Twenty Years after the Second Vatican Council."

Addressing the role of the laity in the celebration of the liturgy, the Synod Fathers, in their

concluding statement declared:

In the Eucharistic celebration, the centre of all Christian life, the faithful become especially united with Christ and are sent to the service of the world. We exhort all the lay faithful to enter intensely into the life of the parishes by the reading of the Word of God, the celebration of the Lord's Day, serving in parish councils and by participating in the various activities of the apostolate.37

35Ibid.

36Ibid., p. 12.

"SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS, "Message to the People of God," October 28, 1987, in Origins, 17 (1987-1988), pp. 385-389, at p. 388. One intervention that generated strong reaction was the paper of Joseph Fessio, S.J. proposing the reasons why women should not be admitted to the non-ordained ministries of acolyte and lector as well as the function 107

It 1989 Pope John Paul issued his post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laid and addressed the role of the laity in the Sacred Liturgy.

Following the liturgical renewal promoted by the Council, the lay faithful themselves have acquired a more lively awareness of the tasks that they fulfill in the liturgical assembly and its preparation, and have become more widely disposed to fulfill them; the liturgical celebration, in fact, is a sacred action not simply of the clergy, but of the entire assembly. It is therefore natural that the tasks not proper to the ordained ministers be fulfilled by the lay faithful. In this way there is a natural transition from an effective involvement of the lay faithful in the liturgical action to that of announcing the Word of God and pastoral care.38

Thus did the Pope draw an important connection between worship and witness, between the

Sacred Liturgy and mission, but he also noted the concerns raised at the Synod:

In the same Synod assembly, however, a critical judgement was voiced along with these positive elements about a too-indiscriminate use of the word "ministry," the confusion and equating of the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, the lack of observance of ecclesiastical laws and norms, the arbitrary interpretation of the concept of "supply," the tendency toward a "clericalization" of the lay faithful and the risk of creating, in reality, an ecclesial structure of parallel service to that founded on the sacrament of orders.39

The Pope urged that when conferring various ministries, offices and roles on the lay faithful, pastors should exercise care to do so in virtue of baptism and to guard against what he calls

"a facile yet abusive recourse to a presumed 'situation of emergency' or to 'supply by

of altar server {Origins, 17 [1987-1988], pp. 397-399). The Synod chose, prudently, not to address such issues directly. Instead, it noted: "All the local churches owe a debt of gratitude to those lay faithful, men and women, who without the slightest hesitation-even to martyrdom-together with the clergy and religious, build up the Church to the ends of the earth. The common conviction that lay Christians have the right to participate fully in the building of a new world, as well as the theology of Vatican II, bring about a fuller participation in the life of the Church and her action in the world" ("Message to the People of God," pp. 387-388).

38JOHN PAUL II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laid, no. 23, December 30, 1988, in AAS, 81 (1989), pp. 393-521; English translation in Origins, 18 (1988-1989), pp. 561- 595, at p. 571.

39Ibid. 108 necessity' where objectively this does not exist or where alternate possibilities could exist through better pastoral planning" (no. 23). On the lay ministries of lector and acolyte, the

Exhortation stated:

In the course of synod work the fathers devoted much attention to the lectorate and the acolytate. While in the past these ministries existed in the Latin Church only as spiritual steps enroute to the ordained ministry, with the Motu proprio of Paul VI, Ministeria quaedam (Aug, 15, 1972), they assumed an autonomy and stability as well as a possibility of their being given to the lay faithful, albeit only to men. This same fact is expressed in the new Code of Canon Law. At this time the synod fathers expressed the desire that "the Motu proprio Ministeria quaedam be reconsidered, bearing in mind the present practice of local churches and above all indicating criteria which ought to be used in choosing those destined for each ministry (no. 23).

The Pope announced the establishment of an inter-dicasterial commission to study and provide an in-depth report on the various theological, liturgical, juridical and pastoral considerations associated with the increase of ministries entrusted to the lay faithful (no. 23).

This resulted in the publication, some ten years later, of the inter-dicasterial Instruction on

Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Ministry of Priests Ecclesiae de mysterio.40 This Instruction is composed of two main sections, the

40CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY et al., Instruction Ecclesiae de mysterio, August 15, 1997, in AAS, 89 (1997), pp. 852-877; English translation in Origins, 27 (1997-1988), pp. 397, 399- 409. The Instruction is signed by the Prefects, Presidents and Secretaries of eight dicasteries: Clergy, Doctrine of the Faith, Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Bishops, Evangelization, Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Laity and Interpretation of Legislative Texts. J. Huels concludes that the papal approval in forma specifica both changes the Instruction from an administrative to a legislative document. The Pope ordered it to be promulgated, and it expressly revokes contrary particular laws and customs. Whereas an administrative instruction has as its goal to implement and enforce already existing laws, the Instruction goes beyond this goal in a number of areas. Huels points out that the approval of instructions in forma specifica is a novelty. The particulars of his arguments are not the object of our study at this point, since it is only in reference to ongoing themes in the pontificate of John Paul II that we touch upon this Instruction, but his insights will prove valuable as we assess the canonical aspects of RS in chapter 4. (See J. HUELS, "Interpreting an Instruction Approved in forma specifica," in Studia canonica, 32 (1998), pp. 5-46.) 109 first being theological principles and the second, practical provisions. As to the former, the document addresses the distinction between the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, the unity and diversity of ministerial functions, the indispensability of the ordained ministry and issues surrounding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in pastoral ministry. As for the latter, one of the concerns raised is the use of appropriate terminology, especially in relation to the fulfilment of liturgical offices. Among the distinctions is that of a situation in which the laity are called to fulfill certain ministries on

a temporary basis.

The non-ordained faithful may be generically designated extraordinary ministers when deputed by competent authority, solely by way of supply, those offices mentioned in c. 230, §3 and in cc. 943 and 1112. Naturally, the concrete term may be applied to those to whom functions are entrusted by law, e.g. catechists, acolytes, lectors. Temporary deputation for liturgical purposes-mentioned in c. 230 §2-does not confer any special or permanent title on the non-ordained faithful (art. I, no. 3).

Another matter addressed in this section is lay preaching. The Instruction notes that

the lay faithful may indeed preach in churches and oratories, even during various liturgical

celebrations.41 However, the homily, which is a particular and "eminent" form of preaching,

is a part of the liturgy and therefore is always reserved to an ordained priest or deacon, an

exclusion not based on the preaching skills of the sacred ministers or even their theological

formation but on a function reserved to them in virtue of ordination, and this is not open to

dispensation.

For the same reason the diocesan bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying. For the same reason the

41Art. 3, no. 3. In the same place, the Instruction did note that the expression admittipossunt of c. 766 makes it clear "that in no instance is this a right such as that which is specific and proper to the bishop or a faculty such as enjoyed by priests and deacons." 110

practice on some occasions of entrusting the preaching of the homily to seminarians or theology students who are not clerics is not permitted. Indeed, the homily should not be regarded as a training for some future ministry. All previous norms which may have admitted the non-ordained faithful to preach the homily during the Holy Eucharist are to be considered abrogated by c. 767 §1 (art. 3, no. 1).

The Instruction recalls that liturgical celebrations are to reflect the hierarchical nature of the Church and are to express the unity of the people of God as a structured communion.

The close tie between the orderly exercise of liturgical actions and the Church's hierarchical nature is most effectively manifested "when all participants, with faith and devotion, discharge those roles proper to them." The Instruction declares: "To promote the proper identity of various roles in this area, those abuses which were contrary to the provisions of c. 907 are to be eradicated."42

In Eucharistic celebrations, deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers-e.g., especially the Eucharistic Prayer with its concluding doxology-or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to "quasi-preside" at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity (art. 6, no. 2).

On a related matter, the Instruction explains the significance of vesture and the need to avoid any confusion in this regard.

In the same way, the use of sacred vestments which are reserved to priests or deacons (stoles, chasubles or dalmatics) at liturgical ceremonies by non-ordained members of the faithful is clearly unlawful. Every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion which can spring from anomalous liturgical practices. As the sacred ministers are obliged to wear all the prescribed liturgical vestments, so too the non-ordained faithful may not assume that which is not proper to them (art. 6, no. 2).

42Art. 6, no. 2. According to c. 907, "In the celebration of the Eucharist, deacons and lay persons are not permitted to say the prayers, especially the Eucharistic prayer, nor to perform the actions which are proper to the celebrating priest." Ill

The Instruction dealt extensively with extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, calling for an exact application of existing legislation in order to avoid confusion (c. 230 §3).

It emphasized the truly extraordinary nature of this ministry.

Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at Eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present are truly unable to distribute holy communion'. They may also exercise this function at Eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion (art. 8).

In this context the Instruction called upon bishops to enact norms reflecting the supplementary character of this office with particular laws "in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church" and provide for the suitable instruction of those chosen to be extraordinary minsters, including instruction on the doctrine of the Eucharist, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown and the discipline on admission to Holy Communion

(art. 8, no. 2).

Finally, the Instruction proscribed certain practices regarding this extraordinary ministry: extraordinary ministers self-communicating or receiving Communion apart from the other faithful as though they were concelebrants; their participation in the renewal of promises made by priests at the Mass of Chrism or employing that celebration as the occasion for other categories of faithful to renew religious vows or receive for the first time the mandate to serve as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion; and the habitual use of extraordinary ministers, thus extending the concept of a greater number of faithful (art. 8, no. 2).

The Instruction sought to preserve the distinction between priests and laity during the celebration of the Eucharist, especially in relation to those tasks which belong by virtue of 112 ordination primarily to priests (and deacons) but which, in extraordinary circumstances and by temporary deputation (c. 230), might be entrusted to the lay faithful. This accords most closely with the indications of Sacrosanctum concilium, which called for drawing up norms for the renewal of the Sacred Liturgy that would express the hierarchical and communal nature of the liturgy as a manifestation of the Church (no. 26).

2.4 Preserving the Heart of the Eucharist: The Eucharistic Prayer

Nowhere in the course of the Eucharistic celebration is the distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of all the baptized more pronounced than during the proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer. On a number of occasions the Holy See emphasized both the importance and meaning.of the Eucharistic Prayer and the various means by which all the faithful are called to participate in this great prayer. According to the

GIRM, the Eucharistic Prayer is the "centre and summit of the entire celebration," "a prayer of thanksgiving and sanctification."

The priest invites the people to lift up their hearts to the Lord in prayer and thanks; he unites them with himself in the prayer he addresses in their name to the Father through Jesus Christ. The meaning of the prayer is that the entire congregation joins itself to Christ in acknowledging the great things God has done and in offering the sacrifice.43

431975 GIRM, no. 54; no. 78 in the 2002 edition. According to E. Foley, in GIRM Commentary, pp. 170-180, the prayer is defined as one of "thanksgiving and sanctification. Whereas intercession was dominant in the Roman Canon of the 1962 Missal, these emphases contribute to the "recovery here of the ancient understanding of the Eucharistic Prayer as the great thanksgiving," which is the result of "the influence of sustained scholarship exploring this pivotal Eucharistic moment." Nevertheless, he notes that while the assembly have a role to play, it has been reduced in GIRM, no. 78 to listening in reverence and silence even though the acclamation as described in no. 79 forms an important part of the Prayer. He suggests that the revised 2002 version "gives the 113

In the period following the promulgation of the new Missal, an ongoing concern was not only to emphasize the centrality of the Eucharistic Prayer and the distinction of roles in that great prayer, but also the necessity of using the Eucharistic Prayers in the Missal. The

Instruction Liturgicae instaurationes emphasized that, more than any other part of Mass, this prayer belongs uniquely to the priest; the recitation of any part of it by persons who are not priests is forbidden. This is in keeping with one of the principles of the Constitution on the

Sacred Liturgy, that of the hierarchical character of liturgical celebrations (SC, no. 28), in which all do those parts that belong to them by virtue of the office or ministry with which they have been entrusted.44

On April 27, 1973 the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship sent a letter to the

presidents of conferences of bishops entitled Eucharistiae participationem.45 Recalling the

purpose of the reform of the Sacred Liturgy-the promotion of participation in the Eucharist

on the part of the faithful-the Letter explained that the revised missal permits a whole range

of choices regarding the texts of the liturgy, including scripture readings, chants,

acclamations, presidential prayers and three new Eucharistic Prayers in addition to the

impression that the essence of active participation is reverent silence, and overlooks its own previous comments about the importance of posture and gesture during this ritual unit ... as well as the opening dialogue and particularly the eucharistic acclamations which are essential vocalizations by the assembly...." He draws attention to the fact that in some of the Eucharistic Prayers for children, there are as many as twelve such acclamations.

AALiturgicae instaurationes, no. 4., in AAS, 62 (1970), p. 698; English translation in DOL, no. 522, p. 163.

45SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Circular Letter Eucharistiae participationem, April 27,1973, in Notitiae, 9 (1973), pp. 193-201; English translation in DOL, nn. 1975-1993, pp. 623-629. 114

Roman Canon.46 All of this was prepared, the Letter noted, to achieve both unity and variety in liturgical prayer, thus enabling Christian communities to share the same faith and the same prayers as part of the one Church and, through the use of the vernacular, to proclaim the one mystery of Christ and so take part in the celebration with greater spiritual benefit.47

The Letter observed that some had taken to adapting the liturgy by composing new formulae, including new Eucharistic prayers, as if the choice in presidential prayers and the four Eucharistic Prayers in the new Order of Mass did not sufficiently meet the needs or the diversity of assemblies, regions and peoples. Some were even composing Eucharistic Prayers

which were being used by priests without the necessary approbation (no. 4).

At the request of the Pope, the Congregation studied, among other things, the

possibility of granting to episcopal conferences the competency to approve new Eucharistic

Prayers. After having consulted with both the Roman Pontiff and other dicasteries, the

Congregation, gathered in plenary session, determined that "it is not advisable to grant to the

conferences of bishops a general permission to compose or approve new eucharistic prayers."

Instead, the Congregation suggested it more opportune to emphasize the need for thorough

and ongoing catechesis on the nature and characteristics of the Eucharistic Prayer, which is

the "high point of the celebration," as well as to provide instruction on the ways in which

46Ibid., no. 1. Since that time, five more Eucharistic Prayers have been added, including three for Masses with children and two for Masses of reconciliation. 47Ibid., no. 2. The Letter suggests that, since the work of translation was taking some time, this might account for the lack of awareness as to the possibilities offered by the new Rite of Mass, possibilities that could contribute to the pastoral efficacy of the liturgical celebrations (no. 3). 115 priests can promote full participation while observing the current liturgical norms and making full use of existing formulae already contained in the Roman Missal (no. 5).

There are therefore to be only four Eucharistic prayers, those, namely, contained in the revised Roman Missal; it is unlawful to use any other prayer that is composed without leave of the Apostolic See or that does not have its approval. The Conferences of Bishops and the bishops individually are urgently requested that by using compelling reasons they lead priests to respect the one practice of the Roman Church: this course will be a service to the good of the Church itself and to the correct carrying out of the liturgical celebration (no. 6).

The Letter then provided a theological treatment of the nature and importance of the

Eucharistic Prayer, especially as it pertained to the Roman liturgical tradition, in the hope that execution of the Letter might be easier. Although some adaptation of celebrations is permissible, there is not to be the slightest change to the texts of the Eucharistic Prayers

(no. 7).

Drawing upon GIRM, no. 54, the Letter explained that the Eucharistic Prayer is the

culmination of the entire celebration, a prayer of thanksgiving and sanctification that has as

its purpose to unite the entire congregation with Christ, proclaiming the wonderful works of

God and offering sacrifice. It is recited by the priest whose voice is that of God speaking to

his people and of the people raising their souls to God. For this reason, the priest's voice

alone should be heard, with the congregation maintaining a reverent silence. The Eucharistic

Prayer also has a catechetical aspect, especially in the preface which presents aspects of the

mystery of salvation, thus providing greater motives for offering thanks. The Letter noted that

one of the singular qualities about the revised Missal is the increased number of prefaces

either newly composed or drawn from the ancient tradition of the Roman Church. It also

notes that priests presiding over the Eucharist are permitted to briefly introduce the 116

Eucharistic Prayer, explaining the reasons for thanksgiving, adapting them to the congregation in order to help them receive greater benefit from the Eucharistic celebration by means of a brief comment.48

The Letter emphasized the ecclesial dimension of the Eucharistic Liturgy which, in itself, is a profession of faith by which the Church understands and expresses herself.

Through the Eucharistic Prayer, it is the one and only Catholic Church present in every local

Church that addresses itself to God. Use of unapproved texts can only lead to "distress and dissension," contradicting the very meaning of the Eucharist as the "sign of unity" and "bond of charity." Noting that many had complained about the overly subjective character of such unapproved compositions, the Letter declared that the faithful "have in fact the right for it not

to be interspersed or filled with personal views of the one who composed it or recites it,"

especially since the faithful are called to ratify the prayer with the "Great Amen." This should

make evident the necessity of using only those texts approved by legitimate authority which

are clearly and completely ecclesial in character.49

48Ibid., no. 8. The Letter also drew attention to the intercessory character of the Eucharistic Prayer with provision to insert forms suitable to the occasion such as the formulae for the Masses at the Easter Vigil and throughout the Octave for neophytes, as well as on the occasion of the celebration of Confirmation, Ordination, Marriage, religious profession and the consecration of virgins-the Hanc igitur propria (no. 9). There are also the Communicantespropria which help to bring out more clearly the mystery celebrated (as at Christmas, Epiphany, Holy Thursday, the Easter Octave, the Ascension and Pentecost). These texts illustrate that, although the Roman liturgical tradition placed great emphasis upon unchangeability in the Eucharistic Prayer, it did allow for appropriate inclusions which enabled the faithful to participate more easily in a prayer that is familiar while at the same time capable of admitting occasional but not frequent variations. The Letter indicated that conferences of bishops and the authorities of religious communities may make similar provision with regard to these already existing variable elements after seeking the confirmation of the Holy See (no. 10).

49Ibid., no. 11. The Letter again noted the existing means to permit a greater adaptation, such as introductions, the homily and the general intercessions. As for these introductions or admonitions, 117

Finally the Letter addressed another means of participation, that of sacred silence, noting that, far from being inactive, such silence has the capacity to enable all participants, according to the nature and reason for the period of silence, either to reflect on their own lives, to mediate briefly on what they have heard, or to praise and entreat God in their hearts

(no. 18). The Letter concluded by expressing the hope that pastors, instead of introducing novelties in the texts, rites and sacred actions, should lead the faithful to a greater understanding of the character, structure and elements of the celebration, especially the

Eucharistic Prayer.

The power and effectiveness of the liturgy does not consist merely in the newness and variety of its elements, but in a deeper communion with the mystery of salvation that becomes present and active in the liturgical rites. Accordingly, only in the professing of one faith and the outpouring of one prayer to God can the faithful attain their own salvation and enter into communion with each other (no. 19).

Many of these points would be reiterated in the 1980 Instruction Inaestimabile donum.50 Describing the Eucharistic Prayer as the highpoint of the Eucharistic celebration,

they can assist the faithful in coming to a fuller understanding of the liturgy and, thus, a greater participation. Such admonitions can be made at the beginning of Mass, before the Liturgy of the Word, at the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer and before the dismissal. In addition, the revised rite of Mass permits the adaptation of the invitations to the Penitential Rite and the Lord's Prayer, of which the texts provided in the Missal are samples. The Letter added that such admonitions should not turn into sermons or homilies, that brevity be cultivated and verbosity avoided (no. 14). Similarly, the homily, an integral part of the liturgy, should take into account the community's capacity, way of life as well as the context of the celebration (no. 15). So also the prayers of the faithful, which are a response to the Word of God as expounded in the homily and which should be relevant to the particular assembly (no. 16). Pastors and others who have a special part to play in the liturgy were encouraged to give careful thought to the different kinds of verbal communications including readings, homily, admonitions and introductions. Further, in their delivery, whether it be the prayers and especially the Eucharistic Prayer, celebrants were exhorted to avoid a mode either dry and monotonous on the one hand, or subjective and emotional on the other, but are to strive to help the faithful become "a true community that celebrates and lives out the memorial of the Lord" (no. 17).

50 CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Inaestimabile donum, April 3, 1980, in AAS,12 (1980) pp. 331-343; English translation in Origins, 10 (1980- 118 it recalled that its proclamation was to be reserved to priests by virtue of their ordination.

Nevertheless, the faithful are not to be passive during its proclamation but are to unite themselves with the priest in faith and silence as well as in the appropriate responses and acclamations. The Instruction declared it an abuse to have the priest's parts said by the deacon or other ministers or by the faithful, including their recitation with the priest of the doxology Per ipsum (no. 4). On related matters, the Instruction renews the prohibition of previous documents forbidding the use of privately composed Eucharistic Prayers as well as the alteration of ones already approved by the Church (no. 5). Furthermore, it directed that

1981), pp. 41-44. This Instruction, intended to give juridical expression to the theological and pastoral concerns expressed by John Paul II in his Letter to Bishops Dominicae cenae, is entitled "Certain Norms Concerning the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery." The Instruction called the bishops' attention to certain norms concerning the Eucharist while explaining that the indications were not intended to be a summary of everything already stated by the Holy See and which had been promulgated since the Second Vatican Council and still in force. While recalling the many positive results of the liturgical renewal, including a more active and conscious participation in the liturgy, doctrinal and catechetical enrichment through the use of the vernacular and the wealth of readings from Scripture, the strengthening of the relationship between life and worship, liturgical piety and personal piety, and between the liturgy and popular piety, it also noted that varied and frequent abuses were being reported from different parts of the Catholic world. Such abuses included: the confusion of roles, especially between priests and the laity (as in the shared recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, homilies delivered by the laity and the distribution of Holy Communion by laity while priests refrain from doing so); an increased loss of the sense of the sacred (as in discarding liturgical vestments, celebrating the Eucharist outside a church without genuine need and a lack of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament); a misunderstanding of the ecclesial nature of the liturgy (as in the use of private texts, unapproved Eucharistic Prayers, and the manipulation of liturgical texts for social and political purposes). The Instruction described some of the effects of such abuses including: the impairing of the unity of faith and worship in the Church; doctrinal uncertainty; scandal and bewilderment among the people of God; and even the "near inevitability of violent reactions." Furthermore, the Instruction situated such concerns within the context of the right of the faithful to the Church's liturgy: "The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy, which means the Liturgy desired and laid down by the Church, which has in fact indicated where adaptations may be made as called for by pastoral requirements in different places, or by different groups of people. Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful. The use of unauthorized texts means a loss of the necessary connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi. The Second Vatican Council's admonition in this regard must be remembered: 'No person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.'." 119 the Eucharistic Prayer was not to be overlaid with other prayers and songs but proclaimed by the priest clearly in order that the faithful understand it and so that, through its proclamation, they might be formed into a true assembly "entirely intent upon the celebration of the memorial of the Lord" (no. 6).51

As we have already noted, the interdicasterial Instruction Ecclesiae de mysterio of

August 15,1997 reiterated a number of these points in its commentary on the role of deacons and lay faithful during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer. The insistence of the proper distinction of roles in the proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer recalls that it is, indeed, at the heart of the Eucharist and represents that theater of divine action in the Eucharistic

Liturgy. Again, we turn to the work of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger for elucidating this truth.

51In Canada, the National Bulletin on Liturgy produced a commentary on this Instruction with some critical observations. Regarding consequences of abuses as described by the Instruction, it says: "While these could be the results of the attitudes and abuses if carried to an extreme, it sounds a little like prophesying the collapse of the country's economic system to a child who steals a cookie in a bakeshop." Regarding the matter of the Eucharist, it complains: "We do not feel that Rome has yet heard the thrust of the traditions and reasons given in great detail in Eucharistic bread: actual food." As for the insistence on the minister giving Holy Communion (no. 9), the commentary says: "While we concur with this provision we hope it is not the beginning of a new clericalism." The commentary describes "the strange flipflop of recent years" regarding the role of women in the liturgy: "It would seem that we are still not facing the question of the role of women in the Church. It is a question that will not go away, nor should it. Attempts to bury it with a shovel or a steamroller could cause some of the "inevitable violent reactions" mentioned in paragraph (e) of the foreword." The commentary also notes that the Instruction neglects music, giving only "minuscule and passing references." Nor does it emphasize the importance of Communion from the sacrifice. And it suggests other abuses, including inordinate haste, minimalism, the failure to benefit from options and alternatives, "hit-and-run homilists who pop in to preach and then leave ..., preaching on special collections or other themes without regard to the Sunday readings: Rome itself continues to impose themes on various Sundays throughout the year." It concludes, "The Instruction gives the appearance of having been written in haste in order to counteract what is bad. While it contains many positive points, it is generally cast in a negative tone. It will do little to move those who are not trying to celebrate the liturgy in the spirit of Vatican II." See CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, "Commentary on Inaestimabile donum," in National Bulletin on Liturgy, 13 (November-December 1980), pp. 218-236. This critique of the Instruction has an irritated and even sarcastic tone, which is unworthy of an organ of the CCCB. 120

The real liturgical action, the true liturgical act, is the oratio, the great prayer that forms the core of the Eucharistic celebration, the whole of which was, therefore, called oratio by the Fathers.... Perhaps it would be useful to note here that the word oratio originally means not "prayer" (for which the word is prex), but solemn public speech. Such speech now attains its supreme dignity through its being addressed to God in full awareness that it comes from him and is made possible by him. But this is only just a hint of the central issue. This oratio-the Eucharistic Prayer, the "Canon"-is really more than speech; it is actio in the highest sense of the word. For what happens in it is that the human actio (as performed hitherto by the priests in the various religions of the world) steps back and makes way for the actio divina, the action of God. In this oratio the priest speaks with the I of the Lord- "This is my Body," "This is my Blood."... This is what is new and distinctive about the Christian liturgy: God himself acts and does what is essential.... The uniqueness of the • Eucharistic liturgy lies precisely in the fact that God himself is acting and that we are drawn into that action of God. Everything else is, therefore, secondary.... Doing really must stop when we come to the heart of the matter: the oratio. It must be plainly evident that the oratio is the heart of the matter, but that it is important precisely because it provides a space for the actio of God.52

This does not eliminate the role of the assembly. On the contrary, as indicated in the GIRM and other documents we have considered, the faithful unite themselves with the offering that takes place in this great prayer, especially through the acclamations that punctuate its proclamation as well as through gesture, posture and, not least of all, through silent attention.

This emphasis on the Eucharistic Prayer does not render the Liturgy of the Word less important since its proper celebration should have, as its goal and effect, to render participation in the Liturgy of the Eucharist and reception of the Sacraments, especially Holy

Communion, more effective and fruitful. In various documents, emphasis upon the

importance of the Word is repeated often, inspired by the Second Vatican Council which had

called for an opening up of a "richer fare" of scriptures.

Recalling that, in the proclamation of the readings, God is speaking to his people, the

Instruction Liturgicae instaurationes, urged that careful attention be given to the celebration

!J. RATZINGER, The Spirit of the Liturgy, pp. 172-174. 121 of the Liturgy of the Word (no. 2). Among its stipulations: it is never permitted to substitute readings from other sacred or profane authors, whether ancient and modern; the homily must be given by a priest and must have as its purpose to explain the Word of God; it is not permitted to have only a single reading; and, since the Liturgy of the Word has as its purpose to prepare and lead up to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, forming as they do, one act of worship,

it is never permissible to separate the two at different times or in different places.

Likewise, following upon the Letter of John Paul II, Dominicae cenae, in which the

Pope speaks of the importance of the two tables of Word and Eucharist, the Instruction

Inaestimabile donum emphasized the unity of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the

Eucharist, restating SC, no. 10 that the two parts are so closely connected that they form but

one single act of worship (no. 1). Among the consequences of such a unity is that persons

must approach the first before partaking of the second.

Further, since Scripture is of the highest importance, the norms of the Lectionary were

to be observed; it is a "serious abuse" to substitute the Word of God with other texts (no. 1).

The Instruction reiterated that the proclamation of the Gospel is reserved to ordained

ministers while other readings may be entrusted to instituted lectors or "spiritually and

technically trained laity." The first reading is to be always followed by the responsorial

psalm, which is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word (no. 2). The homily is meant to

explain the Word of God as proclaimed in the readings, with the goal of applying its message

to contemporary circumstances, and it is to be delivered by a priest or deacon (no. 3).

The Code of Canon Law recalls the importance of the Liturgy of the Word, especially

in Book IE, "The Teaching Office of the Church," under the first Title, "The Ministry of the 122

Divine Word." Bishops are the moderators of this ministry in their churches (c. 756); priests assist the bishop in this work, especially parish priests and priests entrusted with the care of souls (c. 757). In encouraging the preaching ministry, c. 762 says that sacred ministers are to consider the office of preaching of great importance, since proclaiming the Gospel of God to all is among their principal duties. Pride of place is to be given to the homily which, according to c. 767 § 1, is the most important form of preaching, a part of the liturgy itself and reserved to a priest or deacon. Further, the canon explains that the homily has as its object the mysteries of faith and the rules of Christian living, drawn from the sacred texts. The

second paragraph notes that, except for a grave reason, a homily is to be given at all Masses

with a congregation on Sundays and holy days of obligation. The third paragraph of the same

canon strongly recommends that a homily be given at weekday Masses during Advent and

Lent, on feast days and on the occasion of grief if a sufficient number of people are present.

Finally, paragraph four of c. 767 states that parish priests and rectors of churches are to

ensure that these norms are to be carefully observed.

The centrality of the Eucharistic Prayer in no way diminishes the importance of the

Liturgy of the Word. Of course, the fruit of the Eucharistic Prayer is the Communion Rite,

which also received a great deal of attention on the part of the Supreme Authority of the

Church as also the dicasteries of the Holy See in this period from the promulgation of the

revised Roman Missal in 1969 to the preparation and issuing of the Instruction Redemptionis

Sacramentum. 123

2.5 Holy Communion

In the period following the promulgation of the new Roman Missal, there were numerous developments in ecclesiastical law pertaining to the administration and reception of Holy Communion. Among these were giving the conferences of bishops the authority to extend the cases in universal law for the distribution of Communion under both kinds as well

as allowing them to permit reception of Communion in the hand; permitting the laity to

distribute Holy Communion at Mass as well as bringing Communion to the sick and

housebound; and the admission of non-Catholics to the reception of Holy Communion in

danger of death or for a grave need. At the same time, some new pastoral challenges arose,

such as Communion for those suffering various disabilities and the question of Communion

for Catholics in good conscience who are in irregular marriages. In this same period, the

constant teachings and discipline of the Church concerning the necessary dispositions for the

reception of Holy Communion were also reiterated. There were also concerns that the

consecrated bread and wine be treated with due reverence, which is reflected in the norms

on the design and construction of sacred vessels and their purification.

2.5.1 Communion under Both Kinds

The 1969 GDR.M elaborates on the importance of Communion under both kinds and

sets forth the occasions on which it may be given (nn. 240-242). In an introductory paragraph,

repeated in the 2002 edition (no. 281), the GIRM establishes the important theological and

symbolic values underlying the practice. 124

Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller light shines on the sign of the eucharistic banquet. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father's kingdom, (no. 240).53

The discipline governing Communion under both kinds, most particularly the occasions on which it may be given, has evolved considerably from the 1969 to the 2002 GIRM. The first version of the GIRM provided a list of thirteen special occasions when Communion under both kinds could be given (no. 242). No role was given to the conference of bishops or diocesan bishop in determining additional cases. Several months later, the Instruction

Sacramentali Communione provided such a role for particular law. The conference of bishops was given the power to decide to what extent and under what considerations and conditions

Ordinaries could permit Communion under both kinds in additional cases of special

significance in the spiritual life of any community or group of the faithful. Ordinaries could

then permit Communion under both kinds not only in the cases determined in the universal

law but also in accord with these other instances of special significance as determined by the

53In his commentary on the 2002 GIRM, E. Foley, on pp. 187-188 of GIRM Commentary, notes that no. 85 states that two things are "most desirable" (Valde optandum est) regarding the Communion of the faithful, that they receive from hosts consecrated at the same Mass (with the added emphasis provided by the phrase "just as the priest himself is bound to do" {sicut et ipse sacerdosfacere tenetur) and, secondly, that the faithful drink from the chalice "when it is permitted" (in casibus praevisis). Foley wonders whether the inclusion of a conditional statement might diminish emphasis on Communion under both forms. In its commentary on the same, the Bishops' Committeeon the Liturgy of the USCCB highlights the two theological aspects of drinking from the cup as both a foretaste of the heavenly banquet and a participation in the suffering of Christ. (See BISHOPS COMMITTEE ON THE LITURGY, Introduction to the Order of Mass, Washington, USCCB, 2003, no. 134.) Also, in the GIRM Commentary, some authors wonder if no. 282 of the GIRM, which calls upon pastors to ensure that the faithful are fully aware of the teaching of the Council of Trent on the doctrine of concomitance, would have the effect of mitigating and diminishing earlier emphases on the spiritual advantage of receiving Communion under both kinds. (See M. SCHAEFER and J. PIERCE, "Some General Norms for All Forms of Mass," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 339-340.) 125 conference of bishops. "Ordinaries may designate the particular instances, but on condition that they grant permission not indiscriminately but for clearly defined celebrations."54

The current discipline in the 2002 GIRM takes this development a considerable step forward. In addition to the cases in universal law, broad authority is given to the diocesan bishop to permit Communion under both kinds "whenever it seems appropriate to the priest celebrant to whom, as its proper shepherd, a community has been entrusted.... The conference of bishops, however, may establish norms regarding the manner by which Holy Communion under both kinds is distributed to the faithful and expanding the cases when it is permitted"

(no. 283). Thus, there are four levels of authority involved. (1) Certain cases for Communion under both kinds are established in the universal liturgical laws; permission of the bishop is not needed to observe the practice on these occasions. (2) Additional cases may be established by the conference of bishops; again, priests would not need permission of the

54SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Instruction Sacramentali Communione, nn. 1-3, June 29, 1970, in AAS, 62 (1970), pp. 664-667; English translation in DOL, nn. 2109-2115,' pp. 664-665. The 1970 Instruction Liturgicae instaurationes addressed a number of matters raised by the new provisions of the 1969 GIRM. The first has to do with Communion under both kinds, which is described as a concession with certain limits and perimeters as indicated in the GIRM (no. 242) and as set forth in the Instruction Sacramentali Communione. Reiterating these norms, the Instruction notes that ordinaries are not to grant "blanket permission" but only within the limits set by the conferences of bishops, which are to specify the occasions for such concessions. It is not to be permitted when there are large numbers of communicants but only for specific, structured and homogeneous gatherings. A thorough catechesis is to precede such permission in order that the people understand its meaning. As for the ministers of the chalice, the Instruction identifies priests, deacons or duly instituted acolytes. Otherwise, it is to be administered by the celebrant as prescribed in the GIRM, no. 245. The Instruction proscribes the passing of the chalice from one communicant to another or self-communication, recommending, in the case of a shortage of ministers, the practice of intinction (Liturgicae instaurationes, AAS, pp. 699-700; DOL, no. 524, pp. 163-164). Concerning Communion under both kinds, the 1980 Instruction Inaestimabile donum enjoins observance of the norms found in the GIRM (1975 edition, nn. 241-242). It says that the conferences of bishops and ordinaries are not to go beyond this discipline. Permission for Communion under both kinds is not to be indiscriminate, and the celebrations in which it is permitted should be clearly defined, well disciplined and homogenous (no. 12). 126 bishop to administer Communion under both kind in these cases. (3) Besides the cases of the universal law and the possible additional cases in the particular law of the conference, the diocesan bishop may permit Communion under both kinds at other times. He could even issue a general decree permitting it at any Mass in which it could be done with suitable decorum. (4) The priest who pastors the local community makes the final determination whether Communion under both kinds will be given at any given Mass in that community in accord with the law. It is ultimately to him to see that the faithful of this community "have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite's becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason" (GIRM, no. 283).

2.5.2 Communion in the Hand

In 1973, the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the

Instruction Immensae caritatis.55 Its purpose was to ensure that the faithful could have

"SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Immensae caritatis, January 29, 1973, in AAS, 65 (1973), pp. 264-271; English translation in DOL, nn. 2073- 2088, pp. 650-654. In fact, many of the principles and provisions set forth in this Instruction were covered by documents issued in the period between the promulgation of the new Missal and its coming into effect. The Instruction Fidei custos, issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, permitted suitable persons to administer Communion to themselves and to others when the ministers as indicated in c. 845 of the 1917 Code were not available on account of ill health, advanced age or the demands of pastoral ministry or where the number of faithful wishing to receive was so great that Mass would be unduly prolonged (SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Fidei custos, April 30,1969, unpublished; Latin text in Enchiridion Vaticanum, vol. 3, pp. 620-624; English translation in DOL, nn. 2043-2053, pp. 641-643). A second document, the Instruction Memoriale Domini, on the manner of distributing Holy Communion, notes that the Church has a responsibility ("an intense concern") to guarantee both "the worthy celebration and fruitful reception of the Eucharist through an exact fidelity to the tradition that has evolved and come down to us." It comments on how the manner of celebrating and receiving 127 greater access to the reception of Holy Communion. In order to bring this about, and having taken into account the recommendations of the conferences of bishops, the norms contained in the Instruction allowed the designation of suitable lay faithful to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion, extend the permission to receive Communion twice in the same day, mitigate the Eucharistic fast for the sick and elderly, and urged due reverence to the Blessed

Sacrament in those places where Communion in the hand is permitted.56

The normative mode of reception of Communion in the Roman Rite was for the minister to place the host on the tongue of the recipient, who was not allowed to touch it.

With Immensae caritatis, the Holy See empowered the conferences of bishops to permit the

has taken many forms. The Instruction explains that, in responding to contemporary needs and challenges, the Church revisited some of those practices which had fallen into desuetude (such as Communion under both kinds) with the hope that their restoration would lend to making obedience to Christ's command "more explicit and striking." This has led to some wishing to revive the practice whereby the faithful receive Holy Communion in the hand and has, in some places, led to the revival of the practice without the approval of the Apostolic See. Reviewing the history and taking into consideration the "contemporary situation of the Church," the Instruction reaffirms the value of the Church's then current discipline of receiving on the tongue, which "effectively ensures that communion is distributed with the required reverence, decorum, and dignity." Furthermore, it recalls that Paul VI had asked the bishops of the Latin Church about allowing Communion in the hand, and the greater number of bishops favoured maintaining the present discipline. On the other hand, in rather ambiguous terms, having exhorted all to conform to the current law, the Instruction suggests that, in places where Communion in the hand is already in use, conferences of bishops should evaluate the unique circumstances in which such a practice takes place while preventing irreverence or even false ideas about the Eucharist. After careful study of the same, conferences of bishops may, by secret ballot and with a two-thirds majority, allow for the practice, first submitting their decision to the Holy See for the requisite confirmation and forwarding a report on the reasons leading to the decision. In confirming such decisions, the Instruction explains that the Holy See itself would carefully examine each request, taking into consideration the overall good of the entire Church (SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Instruction Memoriale Domini, May 29,1969, inAAS, 61 (1969), pp. 541-545; English translation inDOL, nn. 2054-2061, pp. 643-646).

56The heading of the first concession says, "de ministris extraordinariis," and this terminology will be emphasized in documents on the laity under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. 128 faithful in their territories to receive Communion in the hand. The Instruction urged the preservation of devotion and reverence to the Eucharist in the case of Communion in the hand. It noted that, in places where Communion in the hand is to be permitted, suitable instruction concerning Catholic doctrine should stress the real and permanent presence of

Christ under the Eucharistic species, the reverence due to this Sacrament, and the duty of pastors to instruct the faithful to make suitable thanksgiving after receiving Communion in accord with their ability, state and occupations. This was encouraged with the goal of ensuring that "their coming to this heavenly table may be completely worthy and fruitful" and may "lead to a living bond with Christ, in whose flesh and blood we share" (no. 4).

2.5.3 Extraordinary Ministers of Communion

Until the 1970s, lay persons could administer Holy Communion only by a special indult of the Holy See. The possibility of obtaining this indult was publicized more widely in the 1970 Instruction Liturgicae instaurationes.

The first minister of communion is the priest celebrant, next deacons, then acolytes, in particular cases to be determined by the competent authority. The Holy See has the power to permit the appointment of other known and worthy persons as ministers, if they have received a mandate. Those lacking this mandate cannot distribute communion or carry the vessels containing the blessed sacrament (no. 6d).

The Instruction explained that, in the case of a shortage of priests, other persons such as

catechists in mission territories may receive from the bishop, with the approval of the

Apostolic See, the right to celebrate the Liturgy of the Word and distribute Holy Communion

and, while refraining from reciting the Eucharistic Prayer, may read the institution narrative

during the course of the Liturgy of the Word. The Instruction exhorted that, whatever the 129 manner of distributing, it should be "dignified, devout and decorous," avoiding all danger of irreverence and taking into consideration the nature of the liturgical gathering, the age, circumstances and degree of preparation of the recipients (no. 6f).

With the 1973 Instruction Immensae caritatis, the grant of the faculty was decentralized. Instead of being reserved to the Holy See, local ordinaries could permit suitable persons to distribute Holy Communion either on a specific occasion or for a period of time in order that they might give the Eucharist to themselves and to others as well as to bring Holy Communion to the sick and those confined in their homes. According to the

Instruction, this faculty could be granted to a lay person when no priest, deacon or acolyte was available, or when the latter were prevented because of the pastoral ministry, ill health or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful requesting Holy Communion was such that the celebration of Mass or the distribution of the Eucharist outside Mass would be

unduly prolonged (no. 1).

The local ordinary may also permit individual priests to designate persons to

administer Communion on specific occasions. The Instruction noted that a certain order was

to be followed in the selection of extraordinary ministers: lector, major seminarian, male

religious, female religious, catechist, other Catholic man or woman. This order may be

changed at the prudent discretion of the local Ordinary (no. 4). The Instruction explained that

these faculties were to be granted only for the spiritual good of the faithful and for cases of

genuine necessity. Priests are not excused from distributing Communion to the faithful who

legitimately request it or from bringing Communion to the sick. Those selected for this

ministry were to be mandated according to a rite attached to the Instruction, having been duly 130 instructed. Furthermore, they were to be distinguished by their Christian life, faith and morals, worthy of the office, persons with who a devotion to the Eucharist and examples to the faithful. The Instruction warned: "No one is to be chosen whose appointment the faithful might find disquieting."57

The 1980 Instruction Inaestimabile donum gave considerable attention to different aspects of the Communion Rite. It recalled that the faithful were not to self-communicate or hand Holy Communion to others (no. 9). Those faithful authorized as extraordinary ministers may distribute Communion only when no priest, deacon or acolyte is available or when the priest is impeded by illness, advanced age or if the number of the faithful going to

Communion is so large as to prolong the Mass excessively. The Instruction described as

Immensae caritatis, no. 6. The second part of the Instruction extended the occasions in which the faithful might receive Holy Communion twice in the same day. These are at ritual Masses (including First Holy Communion); at Masses for the dedication of a church or altar; on the occasion of a religious profession or the conferring of a canonical mission; at the principal Mass celebrated in the cathedral or parish church on Corpus Christi; on the day of a pastoral visitation; at a Mass celebrated on the occasion of a major religious superior's canonical visitation to a particular religious house or chapter; at the principal Mass at a Eucharistic or Marian congress, whether it be international, national, regional or diocesan; at the principal Mass of any kind of meeting, pilgrimage, or people's mission; at the administration of Viaticum (when Communion might be distributed to the members of the household as well as the friends of the sick person who might be present); and over and above these circumstances, if the local Ordinary grants the permission on a single occasion because of "truly special circumstances." The third part of the Instruction reduced the Eucharistic fast for the sick from one hour to a quarter of an hour. The Instruction allowed non-alcoholic drinks and either liquid or solid medicines at any time for the sick in healthcare facilities or at home (even if not bedridden), those of advanced years whether confined to their homes or in homes for the aged, sick priests, even if not bedridden and elderly priests, as regards both the celebration of Mass and the reception of Holy Communion. This concession also extended to those caring for the sick as well as the family and friends of the sick and elderly wishing to receive Communion with them, whenever such persons cannot keep the one-hour fast without inconvenience (ibid., AAS, pp. 269-270; DOL, nn. 2085-2086, p. 653). Canon 919 of the 1983 Code would eliminate this requirement, including for those who accompany or take care of the sick or elderly provided they are unable to abstain from food and drink for at least one hour prior to receiving Communion without extreme inconvenience. (See A. MARZOA, Annotated Code, p. 712.) 131

"reprehensible" the attitude shown by priests who, though present at a celebration, refrain from distributing Communion, delegating it to the laity (no. 10).

The 1983 Code of Canon Law treats the minister of Holy Communion in c. 910.58

§ 1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon.

§ 2. The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte, or another of Christ's faithful deputed in accordance with can. 230, § 3.

The very term "extraordinary" leads some commentators to emphasize the highly exceptional character of such a provision.59

The 1997 interdicasterial Instruction Ecclesiae de mysterio also gave considerable attention to the role of the laity in the distribution of Holy Communion, emphasizing its highly provisional and temporary nature (art. 8, no. 2). Furthermore, the Pontifical

Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law clarified the application of cc. 910, § 2 and 230, § 3 in response to a dubium whether such extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion could exercise their supplementary function even when ordinary ministers, who are not in any way impeded, are present in the church, though not taking part in the Eucharistic celebration. The answer was negative.60

58See also c. 911 on the ministers of Viaticum.

59"Since these faculties are only granted for the spiritual good of the faithful, and particularly because these ministers are extraordinary (that is, according to the rule of law, only for cases where there is no ordinary minister), the priests must bear in mind that these faculties do not in any way exempt them from their obligation to distribute the Eucharist to those faithful who lawfully request it, particularly the sick." See A. MARZOA, Annotated Code, p. 705.

60PONTIFIC AL COUNCIL FOR THE AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW, Dubium, June 1, 1988, in AAS, 80 (1988), p. 1373; English translation in Annotated Code, p. 1627. J. Huels notes the distinction between a "physical" and a "moral" presence, that even though there may be sufficient clergy physically present they may not be "morally" present because they have not made themselves available for this ministerial role and are not suitably vested to carry out such a 132 2.5.4 Sacramental Sharing

One of the most significant changes to sacramental discipline in this period was introduced in 1967 with the Directory on Ecumenism on the subject of communicatio in sacris, in particular, admitting to the reception of Holy Communion members of non-

Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities. The Second Vatican Council set the foundations for a reconsideration of discipline barring sacramental sharing, seen in the proscription of c. 731, §2 of the 1917 Code.61 In its Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio, the Council spoke of the restoration of unity among all Christians as one of its principal concerns but expressed caution as to sharing worship in common.

Yet worship in common (communcatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of unity among Christians. There are two main principles upon which the practice of such common worship depends: first, that of the unity of the Church which ought to be expressed; and second, that of sharing the means of grace. The expression of unity very generally forbids common worship. Grace to be obtained sometimes commends it. The concrete course to be adopted, when all the circumstances of time, place and persons have been duly considered, is left to the prudent decision of the local episcopal authority, unless the bishops' conference, according to its own statutes, or the Holy See, has determined otherwise.62

ministry. (See J. HUELS, "Eucharistic Ministers in the Presence of Ordained Ministers," in CLSA Advisory Opinions II, pp. 59-61.)

61The second paragraph of this canon stated: "It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and have been reconciled with the Church."

62SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio, no. 8, November 21,1964, in AAS, 57 (1965), pp. 90-112; English translation in Flannery, pp. 452-470 at p. 461. 133

Two years after the Council, the Secretariat for the Promotion of the Unity of

Christians, in its Ecumenical Directory Ad totam Ecclesiam,63 reiterated the caution of the conciliar Decree while at the same time opening the door to some form of worship in common. Regarding the "separated Eastern brothers," this first Ecumenical Directory permited the reception by Eastern non-Catholics of the sacraments of Penance, Holy

Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick provided satisfactory consultations with the competent authorities of the separated Oriental Church had taken place. This openness to the

Eastern Churches is understandable, given the fact that their bishops are in apostolic succession and, consequently, these Churches have valid Orders and a valid Eucharist.

The greater difficulty concerns those ecclesial communities which, according to

Catholic teaching, had failed to preserve apostolic succession and a valid priesthood and whose sacraments, apart from baptism and marriage, are invalid. Nevertheless, the Directory, recalling the distinction made by the conciliar Decree on Ecumenism between worship as the expression of the Church's unity and worship as a means of grace, stated:

Celebration of the sacraments is an action of the celebrating community, carried out within the community, signifying the oneness in faith, worship and life of the community. Where this unity of sacramental faith is deficient, the participation of the separated brethren with Catholics, especially in the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick, is forbidden. Nevertheless, since the sacraments are both signs of unity and sources of grace, the Church can, for adequate reasons, allow access to these sacraments to a separated brother. This may be permitted in danger of death or in urgent need (during persecution, in prisons) if the separated brother has no access to a minister of his own communion and spontaneously asks a Catholic priest for the sacraments-so long as he declares a faith in these sacraments in harmony with that of the Church and is rightly disposed. In other cases the judge of this urgent necessity must be the diocesan bishop or the episcopal

"SECRETARIAT FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY, Directory for Implementing the Decrees Promulgated by the Second Vatican Council on Ecumenism Ad totam Ecclesiam, May 14, 1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 574-592; English translation in Flannery, pp. 483-501. 134

conference. A Catholic in similar circumstances may not ask for these sacraments except from a minister who has been validly ordained (no. 55).

These principles are codified in c. 844 of the revised Code of Canon Law. In terms of separated brethren belonging to those ecclesial communities lacking apostolic succession and valid Orders, §4 of the canon states:

If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or of the conference of bishops, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.64

These provisions are repeated in the 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and

Norms of Ecumenism.65 Consequently, it would be illicit for a Catholic minister to invite

64Regarding the condition that they be in mortal danger or, in the judgment of a diocesan bishop or bishops' conference, there is another serious need, one commentator relates some of the determinations made by various conferences of bishops: "Some conferences have indicated these cases of need in addition to the danger of death. Thus, in the Dominican Republic, 'urgency of conscience or serious difficulty with the ministers of their Church' are considered such needs; the Mexican Bishops' Conference allows the administration of the three sacraments of this canon to Christians who are sick, refugees, prisoners or persecuted, and 'those who express a vehement and legitimate desire to receive them, when their ministers do not appear to provide the service within three months'; the Argentinean Conference considers as cases of serious need, 'accident or catastrophe,' 'jailing or persecution,' 'grave spiritual need due to migration or dispersal' and 'other cases of grave need determined by the diocesan bishop'.... Furthermore, the Argentinean Bishops' Conference specifically requires that 'before administering the sacraments mentioned, an explicit declaration of the Catholic faith with respect to these shall be requested, if possible'." (See J.T. MARTIN DE AGAR, Exegetical Commentary, pp. 414-415). We are addressing here the giving of Holy Communion by a Catholic minister to a non-Catholic, not the question of a Catholic who, finding it physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, seeks reception of these same sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

"PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism La recherche de Vunite, no. 131, in AAS, 85 (1993), pp. 1039-1119; English translation in Origins, 23 (1993-1994), pp. 129, 131-160. See also JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, May 25, 1995, in AAS, 87 (1995), pp. 921-982; English translation in Origins, 25 (1995-1996), pp.49, 51-72, which reiterates this discipline. It is interesting to note, however, that the Pope situates the circumstances for such a request in the context of those who "greatly desire" sacramental reception. This would seem to 135 everyone present at Mass to receive Holy Communion (as sometimes has reportedly occurred). That would be contrary to both the spirit and letter of c. 844 and the provisions of the Ecumenical Directory.

One of the areas of difficulty in this regard has to do with mixed marriages, especially at wedding Masses. Normally, mixed marriages should be celebrated outside of Mass.66

Nevertheless, a diocesan bishop may permit the celebration of a Mass for a just cause, in which case, the 1993 Ecumenical Directory says that the decision to admit the non-Catholic party to Eucharistic Communion "is to be made in keeping with the general norms existing in the matter for both Eastern Christians (no. 125) and for other Christians (nn. 129-131)."

The Directory notes that, in such a case, Eucharistic sharing may only be exceptional, observing the previously stated norms concerning admission of a non-Catholic Christian to

Eucharistic Communion.

broaden the conditions under which the exception as envisaged by c. 844 might be more commonly and frequently extended. On November 8, 1986, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the following directive which they ordered printed in missalettes authorized for use within the United States: "For other Christians: We welcome to this celebration of the Eucharist those Christians who are not fully united to us. It is a consequence of the sad divisions in Christianity that we cannot extend to them a general invitation to receive Communion. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is an action of the celebrating community signifying a oneness of faith, life and worship of the community. Reception of the Eucharist by Christians not fully united with us would imply a oneness which does not yet exist and for which we must all pray" (Origins, 16 [1986-1987], p. 554).

66Ordo celebrandi Matrimonium, editio typica altera, 19 March 1990, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1991, no. 36. 136 2.5.5 Special Cases

In the decades following the introduction of the new Roman Missal, pastors, canonists, and theologians addressed questions regarding categories of persons who were excluded from receiving Holy Communion and who, some thought, ought to be admitted.

Among these special cases are those who cannot consume bread and/or wine for medical reasons, persons with developmental disabilities who appear to lack sufficient use of reason, and persons in irregular marriages.

As medical science identified new disorders as well as new remedies, the Church found it necessary to address the pastoral complexities raised by persons suffering severe allergies to gluten, especially celiac spruce disease. Related is the problem of those, especially priests, who are unable to consume wine, as is the case for many recovering alcoholics. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a 1995 Circular Letter to the conferences of bishops, announced an important doctrinal decision: while hosts completely gluten-free are invalid matter, low-gluten hosts are valid provided that they contain a sufficient amount of gluten to obtain the confection of bread without the addition of foreign materials and without the use of procedures that would alter the nature of bread.67 The Letter

also affirmed traditional doctrine that mustum, namely, grape juice freshly squeezed or preserved by methods that suspend its fermentation without altering its nature, is valid matter

for the celebration of the Eucharist. These doctrinal norms were reaffirmed by the same

67CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Circular Letter Questo dicastero, June 19,1995, inNotitiae, 31 (1995), pp. 608-610; English translation in W.H. WOESTMAN, Sacraments: Initiation, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, 3rd ed., Ottawa, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 2004, pp. 415-416. 137

Congregation in 2003 but with a significant broadening of the possibility of their application.68 While the 1995 Letter enabled only priests to get the permission from their ordinary to use mustum, the 2003 Letter allows this possibility to all the faithful. Moreover, it is no longer required that, for the use of mustum, there must be a medical reason.

Permission can now be granted for other grave causes, for example, for a prison chaplain to celebrate Mass where the rules prohibit him from entering the prison with even a small amount of wine.

Another matter of important pastoral concern had to do with the admission to the

Sacraments, in particular the Eucharist, of persons withdisabilities. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States produced valuable guidelines in this regard. Among the guiding principles are that Catholics with disabilities have a right to participate in the

sacraments (c. 213) and that ministers are not to refuse the sacraments to those who ask for them at appropriate times, are properly disposed and not prohibited by law from receiving

them (c. 843, §1). The criterion for reception of Holy Communion is the same as for all

persons, that the individual is able to distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food (c.

913, §2), a recognition that can be manifest in ways other than verbally, as through manner,

gesture or reverential silence. In making their judgment, pastors are encouraged to consult

with parents or those who take their place, diocesan personnel, and experts. Cases of doubt

68C0NGREGATI0N FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Circular Letter, July 24,2003 (Prot. no. 89/78-17498), in WOESTMAN, Sacraments, pp. 417-419. It does not seem that a Latin version of the letter was ever published. There is no record of it in Enchiridion Vaticanum, Notitiae, or the AAS. The norms of the Letter also acknowledge the possibility of Communion under one species or with a minimal amount of wine. The Letter urges great caution when admitting to Orders a candidate unable to ingest gluten or alcohol. 138 should be resolved in favour of the right of the baptized to receive the sacraments. The existence of a disability is not to be regarded, in and of itself, as disqualifying a person from receiving Communion.69

One of the more pressing pastoral challenges confronting the Church is the question of the admission to the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist, of the divorced and remarried. A 1973 Letter from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed the indissolubility of marriage and recalled the discipline regarding admission to the sacraments of those in irregular unions (cf. c. 2356 of the 1917 Code). At the same time the Letter urged pastoral solicitude, not excluding a pastoral response by means of the internal forum.

With regard to admission to sacraments, the local Ordinaries will also please, on the one hand, stress observance of the current discipline of the Church while, on the other hand, take care that pastors of souls follow up with particular solicitude those

69NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, "Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons with Disabilities," June 16,1995, in Origins, 25 (1995-1996), p. 105,107- 110. In addition to the matter of reception of the Eucharist by those with disabilities is the question of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease. According to one commentator, even though the law requires the use of reason (cc. 913-914), there is the precedent for this in the Eastern Churches in which the Eucharist is given even to infants at their Baptism, and the Church baptizes infants without the use of reason and will permit the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick even if doubt exists that a person has attained the use of reason or if the person would have requested it while in possession of their faculties (cc. 1004-1005). Since medical personnel are unable to say with total clarity the extent of understanding and use of reason possessed by such persons, given that a person with such a condition may have regularly practiced the faith, indicative of a positive choice to receive the Eucharist, and in view of the directives of the American Bishops on admission to the sacraments of those suffering disabilities, cases of doubt should be resolved in favor of the faithful's right to receive the Sacrament (c. 912). (See J.M. HUELS, "Use of Reason and Reception of Sacraments by the Mentally Handicapped," in The Jurist, 44 (1984), pp. 209-219; and R. KASLYN, "Canons 913- 914: Reception of Eucharist by Alzheimer's Patient," in CLSA Advisory Opinions 1994-2000, pp. 270-272.) 139

who are living in an irregular union and, in such cases, in addition to other correct means, use the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum.70

Pope John Paul II addresses this difficult pastoral situation in his Post-synodal

Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris consortio.

Pastors must know that for the sake of truth they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage....

The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon sacred scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist....

This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.71

In 1994, in a further effort to clarify the matter, the Prefect of the Congregation for the

Doctrine of the Faith addressed a Circular Letter entitled "Reception of Communion:

Divorced and Remarried Catholics." Signed by the Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal

Ratzinger, the Letter recalled the discipline of the Church in response to various pastoral initiatives involving a broadening of the traditional internal forum solution.

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, the Church affirms that a new

70 S ACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE FAITH, Letter to All Bishops, April 11,1973, in Canon Law Digest, VIII, pp. 631-632.

71 JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, no. 84, November 22,1981, in AAS, 74 (1981); English translation in Origins, 11 (1981-1982), pp. 437-466, at p. 465. Such a solution as advised by the Pope might receive the same reaction as some to the teaching of Our Lord in John 6:60. 140

union cannot be recognized as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced had remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists.72

The Code of Canon Law accords with this teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

Canon 912 first states the right to Holy Communion: "Any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to holy communion." However, subsequent canons restrict this right in various situations. One of them is pertinent to those in irregular marriages. Canon 915 states: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy Communion."73 A Declaration of the Pontifical Council for

Legislative Texts in 2000 clarifies the interpretation of c. 915.

The phrase, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin [c. 915], is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable.

Given the fact that these faithful who are not living more uxorio while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic communion only remoto scandalo. [...] No ecclesiastical authority may dispense from this obligation in any case nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.74

"CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Circular Letter, "Reception of Communion: Divorced and Remarried Catholics," September 14,1994, in AAS, 86 (1994), pp. 974- 979; English translation in Origins, 24 (1994-1995), pp. 337, 339-341.

"Does the third condition (tfiose who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin) apply to those cases as outlined by Pope John Paul in his Exhortation Familiaris consortio, to include those who: (a) prefer to contract a merely civil marriage and who reject or at least defer the religious marriage, and (b) divorced people who have remarried? Do such situations, even though objectively wrong, constitute at the subjective level occasions wherein the couple intend to persist in a seriously sinful situation? This is one of the difficulties confronting pastors, especially in a society where marital breakdown is so widespread.

74PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, Declaration, June 24, 2000, in Communicationes, 32 (2000), pp. 159-162; English translation in Origins, 30 (2000-2001), pp. 174- 141

2.5.6 The Proper Disposition

Throughout this period, the Church continued to uphold its traditional teaching and discipline on the dispositions necessary for the reception of Holy Communion. The faithful must have the proper dispositions before receiving any sacrament (c. 843, §1). Regarding the Eucharist, c. 916 of the revised Code states:

Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.

The canon refers both to those who receive and those who celebrate the Eucharist. According

to the traditional understanding, an act of perfect contrition obtains remission of mortal sin,

but it must include the firm intention to confess the sin in individual confession, and this

should be done quam primum, as soon as possible.75

Very early in his papacy, Pope John Paul II recalled the fundamental relationship

between the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance. In his first encyclical, Redemptor

hominis, the Pope warned of the dangers resulting in the habitual reception of the Eucharist

175. The Declaration also noted, regarding "obstinate persistence," that it is to be understood as the existence of an objective situation of sin which endures in time and which the will of the individual does not bring to an end,Tio other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church. In other words, no matter the subjective intentions of the persons involved, it is the outward conditions in and of themselves that constitute the basis for denying admission to Holy Communion.

75According to commentators, this obligation could be dispensed a iure on two conditions: (1) a grave danger such as danger of death or embarrassment if Communion is not received or Mass not celebrated; (2) the impossibility of making a prior confession through lack of a confessor. (See A. MARZOA, Annotated Code, p. 710.) 142 that would degenerate into routine and spoke of the need to approach the Eucharist worthily,

recalling the words of the Apostle Paul.

This is the source of the duty to carry out rigorously the liturgical rules and everything that is a manifestation of community worship offered to God himself, all the more so because in this sacramental sign he entrusts himself to us with limitless trust, as if not taking into consideration our human weakness, our unworthiness, the force of habit, routine, or even the possibility of insult. Every member of the Church, especially Bishops and Priests, must be vigilant in seeing that this Sacrament of love shall be at the centre of the life of the People of God, so that through all the manifestations of worship due to it Christ shall be given back love for love and truly become "the life of our souls." Nor can we, on the other hand, ever forget the following words of Saint Paul: "Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."

This call by the Apostle indicates at least indirectly the close link between the Eucharist and Penance. Indeed, if the first word of Christ's teaching, the first phrase of the Gospel good News, was "Repent, and believe in the gospel" (metanoeite), the Sacrament of the Passion, Cross and Resurrection seems to strengthen and consolidate in an altogether special way this call in our souls. The Eucharist and Penance thus become in a sense two closely connected dimensions of authentic life in accordance with the spirit of the Gospel, of truly Christian life. The Christ who calls to the Eucharistic banquet is always the same Christ who exhorts us to penance and repeats his "Repent." Without this constant, ever-renewed endeavour for conversion, partaking of the Eucharist would lack its full redeeming effectiveness, and there would be a loss or at least a weakening of the special readiness to offer God the spiritual sacrifice in which our sharing in the priesthood of Christ is expressed in an essential and universal manner. In Christ, priesthood is linked with his Sacrifice, his self-giving to the Father; and, precisely because it is without limit, that self-giving gives rise in us human beings subject to numerous limitations to the need to turn to God in an ever more mature way and with a constant, ever more profound, conversion.76

Cardinal Ratzinger also addressed the meaning of the Eucharist and the necessity of receiving

worthily.

Nowadays, New Testament scholars essentially give one of two answers. Some of them say that the Eucharist of the early Church built upon meals that Jesus shared with his disciples day after day. Others say that the Eucharist is the continuation of the meals with sinners that Jesus had held. This second idea has become for many people a fascinating notion with far-reaching consequences. For it would mean that the Eucharist is the sinner's banquet, where Jesus sits at the table; the Eucharist is

'JOHN PAUL II, Redemptor hominis, no. 20. 143

the public gesture by which he invites everyone without exception. The logic of this is expressed in a far-reaching criticism of the Church's Eucharist, since it implies that the Eucharist cannot be conditional on anything, not dependent on denominations or even on baptism. It is necessarily an open table to which all may come to encounter the universal God, without any limit or denominational pre­ conditions. But then again-however tempting the idea may be-it contradicts what we find in the Bible. Jesus' Last Supper was not one of those meals he held with "publicans and sinners." He made it subject to the basic form of the Passover, which implies that this meal was held in a family setting. Thus he kept it with his new family, with the Twelve; with those whose feet he washed, whom he had prepared, by his Word and by this cleansing of absolution (John 13:10), to receive a blood relationship with him, to become one body with him. The Eucharist is not itself the sacrament of reconciliation, but in fact it presupposes that sacrament. It is the sacrament of the reconciled, to which the Lord invites all those who have become one with him; who certainly still remain weak sinners, but yet have given their hand to him and have become part of his family. That is why, from the beginning, the Eucharist has been preceded by a discernment. Whoever eats unworthily, eats and drinks judgment on himself because he does not distinguish the Body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:27 ff).... The Eucharist is-let us repeat it-the sacrament of those who have let themselves be reconciled by God, who have thus become members of his family and put themselves in his hands. That is why there are conditions for participating in it.77

The third section of Pope John Paul's Letter to Bishops, Dominicae cenae, was entitled "The Two Tables of the Lord and the Common Possession of the Church." Having given considerable attention to the proclamation of the Sacred Scripture, the Pope proceeded to the second table, that of the Eucharist, and dealt with a number of concerns related to the distribution and reception of Holy Communion including the interrelationship between

Penance and Eucharist. "It is not only that Penance leads to the Eucharist, but that the

Eucharist also leads to Penance. For when we realize who it is that we receive in Eucharistic

communion, there springs up in us almost spontaneously a sense of unworthiness, together

J. RATZINGER, God IS Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2003, pp. 59-60. 144 with sorrow for our sins and an interior need for purification.78 He then offers further reflections on the reception of Holy Communion, the manner of its distribution, the way in which the sacred species is handled and the manner in which the sacred vessels are purified.79

2.5.7 Posture and Vessels

The posture for the reception of Communion and the sacred vessels used in its distribution are two additional noteworthy disciplinary matters which received attention in

1%Dominicae cenae, no. 7. The importance of Penance would be highlighted by Pope John Paul II in two dramatic ways: by designating the subject for the Sixth General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the theme of reconciliation and by making that same theme the object of a jubilee year called to celebrate the 1,950th anniversary of the Redemption. In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, addressing the relationship of Penance to the Eucharist, the Pope writes: "However, it must be remembered that the Church, guided by faith in this great sacrament, teaches that no Christian who is conscious of grave sin can receive the Eucharist before having obtained God's forgiveness.... The person who wishes to receive holy communion is to be reminded of the precept: 'Let a man examine himself (ICor 11:28). And the Church's custom shows that such an examination is necessary, because no one who is conscious of being in mortal sin, however contrite he may believe himself to be, is to approach the holy Eucharist without having first made a sacramental confession. If this person finds himself in need and no means of going to confession, he should first make an act of perfect contrition." See JOHN PAUL II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, December 2, 1984, in AAS, 77 (1985), pp. 185- 275, at pp. 249-250; English translation in Origins, 14 (1984-1985), pp. 432-455, at p. 449.

79Regarding the responsibilities that arise from the ministry of the Eucharistic table, the Pope reminds bishops that their ministry was born at the Last Supper and was handed down to them by apostolic succession. Thus they enjoy the most important responsibility of safeguarding the dignity of the Eucharistic ministry. The invitation to assist at this table is one that has been continuously made, but the Pope recalls that, even in the gospels, some had excuses for declining the invitation to communion with the Lord. He notes that there are those who, perhaps through exaggerated severity, fail to receive Holy Communion, which perhaps indicates a lack of interior willingness. On the other hand, there are those who come to the Lord's table without sufficient preparation and discernment. In view of all this, the Pope reminds priests, in particular, of their calling, of the admonition of their ordination in the handling of the gifts for the People of God, that their hands have been anointed so as to handle Eucharistic species, which they should do with the greatest of reverence in how they offer, consecrate, distribute and, even afterwards, purify the sacred vessels. They are to be vigilant regarding even the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist, especially in light of Communion in the hand. The Pope was quick to assure those who did receive in this manner that he was not impugning everyone. 145 juridical documents in the contemporary period. As for the posture for receiving

Communion, the universal law permits kneeling or standing in accord with the norms of the conferences of bishops and, if standing, it is recommended that the faithful make a sign of reverence, also as determined by the conference of bishops (GIRM, no. 160). The 1980

Instruction Inaestimabile donum also addressed this matter. Affirming the discipline on posture, it says that the sign of reverence should be done in such a way that the orderly coming to Communion is not disrupted. The response of the communicant when receiving

Communion is meant to be the expression of a personal faith in the real presence (no. II).80

The laws regulating sacred vessels are concerned with both their construction and

purification. Vessels are to be made from a noble metal {ex metallo nobili). If they are made

from metal that rusts or from a metal less noble than gold, they should ordinarily be gilded

on the inside (GIRM, no. 328). The conference of bishops may also determine other materials

for vessels, provided they are considered noble in the common estimation of the region (e.g.,

ebony or hard wood) and are suitable for sacred use. Preference is always to be given to

materials that do not easily break or deteriorate (GIRM, no. 329). The purification of sacred

vessels is done by the priest, deacon, or an instituted acolyte after Communion or after Mass,

whenever possible at a side table (GIRM 280). Particular attention must be paid to

80The Instruction exhorts the faithful to make a proper thanksgiving after Communion through either a period of silence or with a hymn, psalm or other song of praise, or also after the celebration for a suitable time (no. 17). 146 consuming immediately and completely at the altar the remaining consecrated wine after

Holy Communion (GIRM 279).81

2.6 Worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass

We have noted how, in treating the Blessed Eucharist, the 1983 Code holds together in a single title the mystery of the Eucharist as sacrifice, Communion and presence, as a

Sacrament to be offered, received and adored. In the period following the promulgation of the new Missal in 1969, the importance of Eucharistic worship outside Mass was continuously taught and encouraged. Furthermore, juridical guidelines and norms were set in place to govern such worship. In 1973, a new Ritual for the distribution of Holy

Communion outside of Mass and the worship of the Eucharist outside Mass was promulgated by the decree Eucharistiae Sacramentum?2

81This is also addressed in the 1980 Instruction Inaestimabile donum, no. 13. This Instruction adds that precaution should be taken to consecrate only the amount of wine needed (no. 14). Particular respect and care are due the chalice, paten and ciboria, ensuring that their form be appropriate for liturgical use and the material noble, durable and adapted to sacred use, with the judgment of such matters belonging to episcopal conferences. The Instruction prohibits the use of simple baskets or receptacles meant for ordinary use as well as vessels of poor quality and lacking artistic style. Chalices and patens should be blessed by the bishop or by a priest (no. 16).

82 S ACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Decree Eucharistiae Sacramentum, June 21, 1973, in AAS, 65, p. 610; English translation of both the Decree and the Ritual in The Rites of the Catholic Church: As Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and Published by Authority of Pope Paul VI, Study Edition [=The Rites], New York, Pueblo Publishing Co, 1983, pp. 469-532. Excerpts are also contained in Flannery, pp. 242-253, from which some quotes are drawn. As the footnotes of this document indicate, much of the content was a reiteration of the matters treated in the Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium of May 25, 1967. According to one author, "The primary concern of this new ritual is to promote Eucharistic devotion and worship outside Mass by integrating it both doctrinally and liturgically with the celebration of the Eucharist." (See E. DlEDERICH, art. "Eucharistic Worship outside Mass," in NDSW, p. 461). 147

The Ritual is comprised of a General Introduction (praenotanda generalia) followed by four chapters. The Introduction provides some fundamental principles and sets forth the relationship between the celebration of the Eucharist and its worship outside Mass (nn. 1 -4), explains the purpose of Eucharistic reservation (nn. 5-8) and describes the place of reservation (nn. 9-11). It also entrusted to the conferences of bishops the preparation of local versions of this ritual, including the determination of which popular traditions of a region should be retained or introduced so long as they are in harmony with the spirit of the liturgy.

Likewise, the conferences were entrusted with making other adaptations judged necessary as well as translations of the texts, including additions such as texts for singing. As for all general decrees and liturgical translations and adaptations, the recognitio of the Apostolic See

is required (no. 12; cf. cc. 455, 838, §3).

The first chapter of the Ritual regulates the distribution of Holy Communion outside

of Mass, the second the administration of Communion and Viaticum to the sick by

extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the third, forms of worship of the Holy

Eucharist and the fourth, texts for use in the Rite of Distribution of Holy Communion outside

Mass as well as for Eucharistic worship and processions of the Blessed Sacrament.

The Ritual begins with some fundamental doctrinal principles. In the Eucharist is

contained the whole spiritual good of the Church (no. 1), and the Eucharistic Sacrifice is both

the origin and consummation of the worship of the Eucharist outside Mass (no. 2). The Ritual

affirms the Church's practice of worshipping the Blessed Sacrament even though the

Eucharist was instituted by the Lord to be consumed (no. 3). In order to direct and foster

devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, it is recommended that "the Eucharistic mystery must be 148 considered in all its fullness, both in the celebration of Mass and in the worship of the sacrament which is reserved after Mass to extend the grace of the sacrifice" (no. 4).

The reasons for Eucharistic reservation are principally for the sick and for adoration.

This latter practice is "essentially proper and rational because faith in the real presence of our

Lord spontaneously evokes a public and external manifestation of that faith" (no. 5). Having described the principal forms of Christ's presence in the celebration of the Mass and noting how these are disclosed progressively in the course of the liturgy, the Ritual repeats

Eucharisticum mysterium, no. 55: "To ensure the full sacramental signification it is therefore more appropriate that when Mass is celebrated Christ should not, if this can be arranged, be eucharistically present on the altar from the beginning of Mass in the sacred species reserved

in the tabernacle." The reason for this, according to the Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium,

is that "the Eucharistic presence of Christ is the fruit of the consecration and should be

recognized as such" (no. 6). Unless a serious reason suggests otherwise, pastors should

ensure that churches in which the Blessed Sacrament is normally reserved should be open

every day for at least some hours and at suitable times, affording the faithful the opportunity

to pray before the Blessed Sacrament (no. 8).

As to the place of Eucharistic reservation, the Ritual directs that it be "truly

preeminent," suitable for private adoration and prayer, which may be facilitated in a chapel

separate from the body of the church, especially in churches where there are frequent

celebrations of marriages and funerals or which are visited by pilgrims or visitors because

of their artistic and historical treasures (no. 9). The tabernacle is to be solid, opaque and

unbreakable, with only one tabernacle in a church which may be placed on an altar or in some 149 other noble and suitably decorated part of the church (no. 10). The presence of the Eucharist

is to be indicated by a veil or in some other suitable manner to be determined by the

competent authority and, according to tradition, an oil lamp or a lamp with a wax candle is

to burn continuously near the tabernacle as a sign of honour (no. 11).

The third chapter, entitled "The Various Forms of Worship of the Blessed

Sacrament," gives both a detailed theological foundation for Eucharistic worship outside of

Mass as well as norms to govern such worship. Renewing principles already set forth in no.

58 of Eucharisticum mysterium, the praenotanda to this chapter of the Ritual explain that

Eucharistic worship is derived from the Sacrifice and is meant to evoke sacramental and

spiritual Communion. The practice that moves the faithful to adore the Blessed Sacrament

brings with it a number of benefits, including a fuller participation in the paschal mystery and

a closer union to Christ. When praying in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, the faithful

make intercession for themselves, for others and for the world, offering their whole lives with

Christ to the Father in the Holy Spirit. They also develop the proper dispositions for

celebrating the Eucharist with "fitting devotion" and for receiving frequently "the heavenly

Bread which the Father has provided." Thus the faithful are to be "zealous" in the observance

of this devotion according to their state in life, encouraged by the teaching and example of

their pastors (no. 80).

The Ritual notes that Eucharistic adoration contributes to prolonging the union of the

faithful with Christ derived from the reception of Holy Communion and renews the covenant

which commits them to practice, by the manner of their lives, that which they have received

from the celebration of the Eucharist and reception of Holy Communion. The Ritual exhorts 150 the faithful to endeavour to lead their entire lives joyfully in the strength of the heavenly food, participating in the death and rising of the Lord, so that they might permeate the world with the Christian spirit as faithful witnesses to Christ in all things.83

In the section, "Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament," a number of foundational principles are renewed, including the relationship between exposition and the Mass.

Eucharistic exposition should clearly express its relationship to the Mass, and arrangements for it must exclude everything that might obscure the intention of Christ who instituted the

Eucharist to make himself available as food, healing and consolation (no. 82). The law

forbids exposing the Blessed Sacrament in any church or oratory where Mass is being

celebrated; prolonged exposition must be interrupted if Mass is to be offered unless it takes

place in a chapel apart from the place of exposition and there is provision that some faithful

remain in adoration (no. 83).84 As for the minister of exposition, the Ritual stipulates that the

ordinary minister is a priest or deacon who may bless the people with the Blessed Sacrament.

83No. 81. Many of the matters treated here were also dealt with in the 1970 Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium.

84Some additional practical points include prescribing a single genuflection for the Eucharist reserved or exposed (no. 84), the use of four or six candles (as many as used at Mass), the use of incense when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed in the monstrance, and only two candles and the optional use of incense if a pyx is used (no. 85). The Ritual directs that periods of solemn exposition (whether continuous or not) should be arranged in churches and oratories where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved with the condition that there be suitable attendance of the faithful (no. 86). In churches attended by larger numbers of the faithful, the local ordinary may also direct prayer before the Blessed Sacrament exposed over an extended period of time in situations of grave and general need (no. 87). Where continuous adoration is not possible due to the lack of sufficient numbers, the Ritual permits a simple reposition at prearranged times but not more than twice in the same day (no. 88). Shorter periods of exposition should consist of a period of silent prayer, readings from the Word of God, hymns and prayers, excluding the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament merely for the purpose of imparting Benediction (no. 89). 151

In their absence or if they are lawfully impeded, others might also expose and repose the

Blessed Sacrament for the adoration of the faithful, namely, acolytes and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, or a member of a religious community or lay association of men or women dedicated to eucharistic adoration appointed by the local ordinary. These latter may not, however, bless the faithful with the Eucharist (no. 91).85

The final part of the Ritual treats Eucharistic processions (nn. 101-108) and

Eucharistic congresses (nn. 109-112). Regarding Eucharistic processions, the Ritual describes their purpose as affording the faithful the opportunity to give public witness to their faith and devotion to the Sacrament. It belongs to the local Ordinary to judge, in contemporary circumstances, the opportuneness of such processions and to determine the time, place and order of same (no. 101).86

85The vesture stipulated for priests or deacons consists of an alb, or a surplice over a cassock, and stole and a white cope and humeral veil to give the blessing at the end of adoration if the monstrance is used but, if done with the ciborium, then the humeral veil over alb and stole or cassock, surplice and stole. Other ministers are to wear the liturgical vestments usual in the region or suitable for their ministry and which have received the approval of the Ordinary (no. 92).

86The Ritual draws attention to the annual procession on the feast of Corpus Christi or on an appropriate day near the feast, with the possibility of additional Eucharistic processions on other days in larger centres for pastoral reasons, again at the discretion of the local Ordinary, with celebrations to mark the feast at least in principal areas of larger centres or in the cathedral church (no. 102). These processions should take place at the conclusion of Mass using a host consecrated at that Mass, but they may also take place after lengthy periods of public adoration (no. 103). The decoration of streets and the order to be followed should be arranged according to local custom, with stations during the course of the procession from which the Eucharistic blessing is given, and accompanied with songs and prayers that proclaim faith in Christ, directing the faithful's attention to him (no. 104). Among other matters addressed by the Ritual are the vesture of the priest carrying the Blessed Sacrament (no. 105); the use of lights, incense and canopy according to local customs (no. 106); the movement of the procession from one church to another if possible (no. 107); and the requirement of concluding with Benediction (no. 108). 152

Eucharistic congresses serve as a manifestation of Eucharistic worship and are opportunities for a local church to invite the churches of a single region or nation or even the entire world to gather together to express public worship in the bonds of charity and unity

(no. 109). Preparations should include thorough catechesis on the Eucharist, taking into account the capacity of different groups, the promotion of a more active participation in the liturgy, attentiveness to the Word of God and, in a spirit of brotherhood and community, research and promotion of social undertakings for human development and the proper distribution of temporal goods (no. 111). The true centre and high point of the congress is the celebration of the Eucharist.87

In his Letter Dominicae cenae, Pope John Paul II recalled various aspects of

Eucharistic worship. He notes that it is to be a worship that should extend beyond the hours of Mass so as to include visits to the Blessed Sacrament as well as various forms of

Eucharistic adoration which have had a longstanding tradition and have been renewed during and since the Second Vatican Council (no. 3).

The second part of the Instruction Inaestimabile donum, entitled "Eucharistic

Worship outside Mass," reiterates many of the provisions set forth in the Ritual De sacra

Communione et de cultu Mysterii eucharisticae extra Missam. Eucharistic devotions are to

"Celebrations of the Word of God, catechetical meetings and public conferences should be arranged to explore thoroughly the theme of the congress as well as proposing the practical aspects to be implemented in the wake of such gatherings, with opportunity for common prayer and extended periods of adoration in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed at designated churches especially suited to this form of piety, with the regulations governing Eucharistic processions being observed (no. 112). 153 be arranged taking into account the liturgical season.88 Specific mention is made of the requirement that an appropriate time be set aside before the blessing for readings from the

Word of God, songs, communal and silent prayer, and concluding adoration with a hymn and prayer.

The second chapter of Title m of Book IV of the revised Code of Canon Law (cc.

934-944), entitled "The Reservation and Veneration of the Blessed Eucharist," repeats certain provisions of the aforementioned Decree and Ritual. These canons reflect the Church's teaching that worship of the Eucharist takes its meaning from the Mass and leads to it, thus serving as the foundation for the reservation of the Eucharist, and that the reserved sacrament is intended both for the Communion of the faithful outside Mass and for their veneration.90

It is necessary to restate this teaching to counter the notion that Eucharistic worship outside

Mass is a distortion of the purpose for which the Eucharist was instituted. In his treatment of the matter, Cardinal Ratzinger notes:

It was the fruit of passionate theological struggles and their resulting clarifications, in which the permanent presence of Christ in the consecrated Host emerged with greater clarity. Now here we run up against the decadence theory, the canonization

No. 21. With regards to particular forms of devotion such as exposition (prolonged or brief), processions of the Blessed Sacrament, Eucharistic congresses and the entire ordering of Eucharistic piety, all must be in accord with the Roman Ritual (no. 22).

89No. 23. Regarding the place of reservation, the Instruction reiterates existing norms that the tabernacle may be located on an altar or in a place in the Church that is prominent, truly noble and duly decorated, or in a chapel suitable for private prayer and adoration (no. 24). The tabernacle's construction must be solid, unbreakable and opaque with the sacramental presence indicated by a tabernacle veil or some other suitable means set forth by the competent authority, with a lamp burning continuously before it as an expression of honour to the Real Presence (no. 25). The practice of genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament reserved or exposed is to be maintained and should be carried out in a recollected way that is neither hurried nor careless (no. 26).

'A. MARZOA, Annotated Code, pp. 723-727. 154

of the early days and romanticism about the first century. Transubstantiation (the substantial change of the bread and wine), the adoration of the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, Eucharistic devotions with monstrance and processions — all these things, it is alleged, are medieval errors, errors from which we must once and for all take our leave. "The Eucharistic Gifts are for eating, not for looking at" — these and similar slogans are all too familiar. The glib way such statements are made is quite astonishing when we consider the intense debates in the history of dogma, theology, and ecumenism undertaken by the great theologians in the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth. All that seems now to be forgotten....

The early Church was already well aware that the bread once changed remains changed. That is why they reserved it for the sick, and that is why they showed it such reverence, as is still the case today in the Eastern Church. But now, in the Middle Ages, this awareness is deepened: the gift is changed. The Lord has definitively drawn this piece of matter to himself. It does not contain just a matter- of-fact kind of gift. No, the Lord himself is present, the Indivisible One, the risen Lord, with Flesh and Blood, with Body and Soul, with Divinity and Humanity. The whole of Christ is there....91

91 J. RATZINGER, The Spirit of the Liturgy, pp. 85-90. He continues: "He is here, he himself, the whole of himself, and he remains here. This realization came upon the Middle Ages with a wholly new intensity. It was caused in part by the deepening of theological reflection, but still more important was the new experience of the saints, especially in the Franciscan movement and in the new evangelization undertaken by the Order of Preachers. What happens in the Middle Ages is not a misunderstanding due to losing sight of what is central, but a new dimension of the reality of Christianity opening up through the experience of the saints, supported and illuminated by the reflection of the theologians. At the same time, this new development is in complete continuity with what had always been believed hitherto. Let me say it again: This deepened awareness of faith is impelled by the knowledge that in the consecrated species he is there and remains there. When a man experiences this with every fiber of his heart and mind and senses, the consequence is inescapable: 'We must make a proper place for this Presence.' And so little by little the tabernacle takes shape, and more and more, always in a spontaneous way, it takes the place previously occupied by the now disappeared 'Ark of the Covenant.' In fact the tabernacle is the complete fulfillment of what the Ark of the Covenant represented. It is the place of the "Holy of Holies". It is the tent of God, his throne. Here he is among us. His presence (Shekinah) really does now dwell among us - in the humblest parish church no less than in the grandest cathedral.... "So let no one say, "The Eucharist is for eating, not looking at." It is not 'ordinary bread', as the most ancient traditions constantly emphasize. Eating it - as we have just said - is a spiritual process, involving the whole man. 'Eating' it means also worshiping it. Eating it means letting it come into me, so that my T is transformed and opens up into the great 'We', so that we become 'one' in him (cf. Gal 3:16). Thus adoration is not opposed to Communion, nor is it merely added to it. No, Communion only reaches its true depths when it is supported and surrounded by adoration." 155 2.7 The Moderation of the Liturgy

The moderation of the liturgy (cf. c. 835, §1) refers to its regulation by ecclesiastical authorities and their vigilance over it. We shall first identify canons from various parts of the

1983 Code of Canon Law that pertain to the moderation of the liturgy. Thereafter, we shall examine aspects of the moderation of the liturgy, especially vigilance over it, as seen in documents of the Holy See and teachings of the popes in the period under investigation.

2.7.1 Moderation of the Liturgy in the 1983 Code

The church officials and bodies responsible for the moderation of the liturgy are given in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which basically codifies norms already in place since

Vatican II. Restating Sacrosanctum concilium, no. 22, § 1, c. 838, § 1 says that the moderation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop. The principal competencies of the

Apostolic See in this regard are to publish the liturgical books and review their translations

and to "exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere" (c.

838, §2). The conference of bishops, too, has a share in the Church's authority over the

liturgy. Its principal competencies are to prepare translations and adaptations of the liturgical

books and to publish them after they receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See (c. 838, §3).

The diocesan bishop has wider authority than the conference. He may freely issue liturgical

norms binding everyone in the diocese (c. 838, §4), subject to the law of c. 135, §2 that a 156 lower-level legislator cannot validly promulgate a law that is contrary to higher law. Canon

846, § 1 imposes a norm binding everyone: "In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully;" then, repeating Sacrosanctum concilium, no. 22, §3, the canon states: "accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one's own authority."

A number of canons emphasize the responsibility that accrues to those whose office and duty it is to supervise and moderate the proper celebration of the liturgy as also the necessary vigilance lest abuses occur. In its treatment of the ministry of bishops, the Code emphasizes that among their primary responsibilities is the duty to moderate the Sacred

Liturgy. The bishops are the principal dispensers of the Mysteries of God and the directors, promoters, and guardians of the entire liturgical life of the church entrusted to them (c. 835,

§1). Diocesan bishops and those equivalent to them in law are exhorted to teach the truths of the faith, preach frequently and ensure that the provisions of the canons on the ministry of the Word, especially the homily and catechetical formation, are faithfully observed (c.

286). They are to help the faithful entrusted to their care through the celebration and reception of the sacraments (c. 387). The diocesan bishop is to defend the unity of the

universal Church, foster discipline and urge the observance of ecclesiastical laws (c. 392 § 1).

In particular, the bishop "is to ensure that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline,

especially concerning the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and

sacramentals, the worship of God and the cult of the saints and the administration of goods"

(c. 392, §2). In carrying out episcopal visitation, among the objects of care and inspection are 157 sacred things and places (c. 397), including the churches and oratories of religious communities to which the faithful have access (c. 683).

Parish priests, too, have certain responsibilities in the supervision and moderation of the Sacred Liturgy in their parishes. The parish priest exercises his ministry under the authority of the diocesan bishop whose ministry of Christ he is called to share, carrying out the threefold office of teaching, sanctifying and governing, in cooperation with other priests, deacons and with the assistance of the lay faithful (c. 519). Canon 528 describes a number of liturgical responsibilities that belong to the parish priest, including the celebration of the

Eucharist and other sacramentals. "Under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, the parish priest must direct this liturgy in his own parish, and he is bound to be on guard against abuses." Within the deaneries of the diocese, the Vicar Foranes have the duty and right to ensure that religious functions are celebrated according to the prescripts of the Sacred Liturgy and that churches and sacred furnishings are properly maintained, especially in relation to the celebration of the Eucharist and the custody of the Blessed Sacrament (c. 555, §1, 30).92

2.7.2 Vigilance over the Liturgy by the Apostolic See

In identifying the individuals and organisms responsible for the regulation and

moderation of the Sacred Liturgy, Pope John Paul II gave first place to the Congregation for

92In a certain sense, the moderation the liturgy is also addressed in the norms governing institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life. Superiors are called to nourish their members with the celebration of the liturgy (c. 619); the formation of religious is to have a liturgical component (c. 553 §2); and the Sacred Liturgy is to occupy an important place in the life of religious (c. 663). 158

Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. An event of import regarding the competencies of this dicastery was the promulgation of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus in 1988.93 This restructuring of the Roman Curia included a re-configuration of this

Congregation which, in the past, had different names and competencies.94 The ambit of this

Congregation is defined in art. 62 of the Constitution.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments does whatever pertains to the Apostolic See concerning the regulation and promotion of the sacred liturgy, primarily of the sacraments, without prejudice to the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Articles 63-70 set forth the specific competencies of the Congregation: fostering and safeguarding the administration of the sacraments, especially as regards their valid and licit celebration; the granting of favours and dispensations not contained in the faculties of bishops (art. 63); the promotion of liturgical pastoral activity, especially regarding the

Eucharist; giving support to diocesan bishops so that the Christian faithful share actively in the sacred liturgy; drawing up and revising liturgical texts, reviewing calendars and proper texts of the Mass and Divine Office for particular churches and religious institutes that enjoy

this right; granting the recognitio for translations of liturgical books and their adaptations

which have been prepared by the conferences of bishops (art. 64); encouraging commissions

and institutes that promote the liturgical apostolate, sacred music, song and art; erecting

93JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus, June 28,1988, in AAS, 80 (1988), pp. 841-934; English translation in Annotated Code, pp. 1431-1551.

94Huels provides an overview of its various configurations and differing nomenclature on p. 42 of Liturgy and Law. Congregation for Sacred Rites (until 1 January 1968); Sacred Congregation of Rites (1 January 1968 until 8 May 1969); Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (8 May 1969 until 1 August 1975); Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship (1 August 1975 until 2 August 1984); Congregation for Divine Worship (2 August 1984 until 1 March 1989); and finally, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (1 March 1989). 159 associations of an international character and granting the recognitio for their statutes; contributing to the progress of liturgical life by encouraging meetings of various regions (art.

65); and ensuring through attentive supervision that the liturgical norms are accurately observed, that abuses are avoided and eradicated where they exist (art. 66).95

The CDWDS enjoys executive power of governance with a jurisdiction that extends throughout the Latin Church, including those regions under the jurisdiction of the

Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. Thus, it can issue both general administrative documents (directories, instructions, circular letters) as well as singular administrative acts directed towards individual persons whether juridic or physical (indults, dispensations, singular decrees and precepts, responses to dubia). It can issue general decrees of legislative power only with the mandate of the pope, as when issuing a revised liturgical rite. It is headed by a cardinal prefect with secretary and undersecretary, and its membership is made up of other cardinals and diocesan bishops. This Congregation publishes the journal

Notitiae (which began as a publication of the Consilium).96

The post-conciliar liturgical documents, particularly those of the CDWDS and its predecessors, reveal how keenly the Apostolic See undertakes it responsibility for vigilance

95As the Congregation was entrusted with the responsibility for the Sacraments, other areas of competence have to do with reviewing non-consummation marriage cases (art. 67) as well as cases concerning nullity of sacred ordination (art. 68). In addition, the Congregation is entrusted with competence concerning the cult of sacred relics, the designation of heavenly patrons, and the granting of the title of "minor basilica" (art. 69). Finally, the Congregation offers assistance to bishops so that popular piety and prayers might be fostered and held in esteem while in full harmony with the norms of the Church (art. 70).

96HUELS, Liturgy and Law, p. 43. Since 2002, this Congregation is assisted in the work of carrying out English translations by Vox clara, a committee of English-speaking bishops from throughout the world and established for this purpose by the same Congregation in 2002. 160 over the liturgy. In the years following the promulgation of the new Missal, the Apostolic See would urge a greater understanding of and fidelity to the liturgical norms contained in the new Missal, always taking into consideration the legitimate adaptations and options permitted and calling upon others responsible to exercise their own duties in overseeing the liturgy and its proper celebration.

The 1970 Instruction Liturgicae instaurationes, noting the progress made since the first two Instructions on the proper implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, says that both the new Order of Mass and the GIRM "truly open a new path for pastoral- liturgical life, permitting great achievement."97 The Instruction explained that, in view of the provisions of the Missal, it was unnecessary to resort to arbitrary adaptations which would weaken the liturgy. One of the hallmarks of the new form of the Mass is that a certain degree of adaptation is permitted.

The many options regarding texts and the flexibility of the rubrics are a great advantage to a living, pointed, and spiritually beneficial celebration, that is, one adapted to local conditions and to the character and culture of the faithful. There is, then, no need for purely personal improvisations, which can only trivialize the liturgy.98

The Instruction emphasized the importance of the ministry of bishops in the regulation of the

Sacred Liturgy, recalling the words of the conciliar Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops,

Christus Dominus, no. 15, which declared that the bishops "are the principal dispensers of

the mysteries of God, and it is their function to control, promote and protect the entire

'Liturgicae instaurationes, in AAS, 62 (1970), p. 693; DOL, no. 509, p. 159.

!Ibid. 161 liturgical life of the Church entrusted to them."99 The Instruction sees as its purpose to help support bishops in their ministry of directing the liturgical life of the churches entrusted to them.100

The Instruction called upon priests to exercise their ministry in a way that respects the liturgical discipline noting that when individual priests change the ritual, this has the effect of offending the dignity of the believer and paves the way to "idiosyncratic forms" of

celebrations that belong to the entire Church. It urged priests to exercise their ministry in

obedience, in hierarchical communion as well as in the spirit of serving God and neighbour.

"The hierarchic character of the liturgy as well as the respectful service owed to the believing

community demand that the priest fulfill his role in worship as the 'faithful servant and

steward of the mysteries of God' without imposing any rite not decreed and sanctioned by

the liturgical books" (no. 1).

In his very first address as Pope, given the morning after his election at a Mass

celebrated with the Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel, John Paul II declared:

Fidelity also means respect for liturgical norms issued by Church authorities. It excludes therefore either arbitrary and uncontrolled innovation or the resistance to

"SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops Christus Dominus, October 28, 1965, in AAS, 58 (1966), pp. 673-696, at pp. 679-680; English translation in Flannery, pp. 564-590, at pp. 571-572.

100"With a view to making the bishop's function more effective for an exact application of liturgical norms, especially those of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as well as for the sake of restoring discipline and order in the celebration of the Eucharist, center of the Church's life, 'a sign of unity and a bond of charity,' it seems worthwhile to review the following principles and suggestions" (DOL, no. 511). 162 that which has been legitimately prescribed and introduced in the sacred rites. Faithfulness indicates also respect for the great discipline of the Church.101

In his Letter to Bishops, Dominicae cenae, John Paul explained that fidelity to the observance of liturgical norms should be understood from within the context of their profound meaning and their impact upon the life of the Church.102 The Pope recalled that the Eucharist is a special possession belonging to the whole Church and, for this reason, "We should remain faithful in every detail to what it expresses in itself and to what it asks of us, namely thanksgiving." The Pope urged: "We should therefore act according to the principles laid down by the last Council which, in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, defined the authorization and obligations of individual bishops in their dioceses, and of the episcopal conferences, given the fact that both act in collegial unity with the Apostolic See." Such fidelity must also extend to the directives issued by the various dicasteries of the Holy See, including liturgical and doctrinal matters as well as whatever might concern the Eucharistic

Mystery. Even while admitting the possibility of certain freedoms, this fidelity must always respect the requirements of substantial unity. The Pope explained: "We can follow the path of this pluralism (which arises in part from the introduction of various languages into the

liturgy) only as long as the essential characteristics of the Eucharist are preserved and the

norms prescribed by the recent liturgical reform are respected."

In this context, the Pope reminded the bishops that the task of overseeing the proper

celebration of the Eucharist belongs, by the nature of things, firstly to the Apostolic See, and

101JOHNPAULII, Address ("Pontificatus exordia"), October 17,1978, in AAS, 70 (1978), pp. 919-927, at p. 924; English translation in Origins, 8 (1978-1979), pp. 291-294, at p. 293.

!A11 citations in the following paragraphs are from nn. 12 and 13 of the Letter. 163 then to each episcopal conference and diocesan bishop and, even beyond these instances, to all ministers of the Eucharist who should always remember that they are responsible for the common good of the whole Church. Priests, especially as presidents of the Eucharistic assembly of the faithful, should have a special sense of the common good of the Church which they represent through their ministry and to which they are subordinate. They are not proprietors of the liturgy, free to make use of liturgical texts and sacred rites as if their own property, stamping it with their own arbitrary and personal style. Such would represent a betrayal of the Sacrament of unity that is the Eucharist. Priests should remember that when they offer the Sacrifice, it is not only a celebration of the particular priest with a particular community but a prayer in union with the whole Church and a sacramental expression of her spiritual unity by means of an approved liturgical text. The Pope, in strong terms, declares:

"To call this position 'mere insistence on uniformity' would only show ignorance of the objective requirements of authentic unity, and would be a symptom of harmful individualism." Thus did the Pope call for a subordination of the minister, of the celebrant, to the mysterium entrusted to him by the Church for the good of the whole People of God.

This subordination will manifest itself in the observance of the liturgical norms governing

the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

The Pope mentioned the requirement of the ministers wearing the proper vestments.

He acknowledged that there might indeed be occasions when the celebration of the Eucharist

may, out of necessity, be offered without such outward expressions, but in normal conditions

such omissions can only be interpreted as a lack of respect toward the Eucharist, a distorted

expression of individualism, an absence of a critical sense concerning current opinions or, 164 even more seriously,a certain lack of a spirit of faith. To those who, by God's grace, have become ministers of the Eucharist, rests a particular responsibility for the ideas and attitudes of those entrusted to their pastoral care. The Pope reminded the clergy that it is their vocation to nurture, above all by personal example, every healthy manifestation of worship towards

Christ present and active in the Sacrament of love. "May God preserve us from acting otherwise and weakening that worship by 'becoming unaccustomed' to various manifestations and forms of Eucharistic worship which express a perhaps 'traditional' but healthy piety, and above all that 'sense of faith' possessed by the whole People of God as the

Second Vatican Council recalled." The Pope asked forgiveness, in his own name and in the name of all his brother bishops, for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, or through partial, one-sided erroneous applications of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the proper understanding of the doctrine and the veneration due the

Eucharist.

The Pope acknowledged the work carried out by the Council, the contributions of his predecessor, Pope Paul VI, especially for his encyclical Mysterium fidei, and all the documents issued after the Council for the purposes of implementing the post-conciliar renewal. He reiterated the close and organic bond existing between the renewal of the liturgy and the renewal of the entire Church and committed himself to promote and follow the renewal of the Church according to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in the spirit of the tradition which, properly understood, involves reading "the signs of the time" while drawing from the rich treasure of revelation "things both new and old" (Mt 13:52). The Pope 165 explained that the Council had set out to enact a "providential effort" to renew the Church by means of the Sacred Liturgy with recourse to ancient resources, including the heritage of the Fathers. He called for the close, vigilant and creative collaboration of the competent dicasteries of the Holy See and the conferences of bishops.

The Pope concluded his Letter to the Bishops by noting the irony and contradiction that arises from divisions surrounding the Sacred Liturgy:

Above all I wish to emphasize that the Eucharistic Liturgy must not be an occasion for dividing Catholics and for threatening the unity of the Church. This is demanded by an elementary understanding of that sacrament which Christ has left us as the source of spiritual unity. And how could the Eucharist, which in the Church is the sacramentum pietatis, signum unitatis, vinculum caritatis form between us at this time a point of division and a source of distortion of thought and behaviour, instead of being the focal point and constitutive centre, which it truly is in its essence, of the unity of the Church herself?

The Pope urged the abandoning of all opposition so as to unite in the great mission of salvation which is both the price and the fruit of redemption. He promised: "The Apostolic

See will continue to do all that is possible to provide the means of ensuring that unity of which we speak. Let everyone avoid anything in his own way of acting which could 'grieve the Holy Spirit' (Eph. 4:30)."

In an Apostolic Letter marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of the promulgation of

Sacrosanctum concilium, John Paul U made reference to the organisms responsible for the moderation and promotion of the liturgical renewal, particularly the CDWDS, bishops' conferences and diocesan bishops.103 The Pope observed that bishops' conferences have the

103 JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Vicesimus quintus annus, December 4, 1988, in AAS, 81 (1989), pp. 897-918; English translation in Origins, 19 (1989-1990), pp. 17-25. The Pope would also mark the fortieth anniversary of Sancrosanctum concilium with his Apostolic Letter Spiritus et Sponsa. This was a more reflective and spiritual treatment of the liturgical renewal as well as future prospects. As for the work of renewal, the Pope reiterates the need for ongoing formation: "It is more 166 responsibility of preparing translations of liturgical books. He suggested that the time had

come to confront some of the difficulties that had emerged in this process in order to remedy

defects or inaccuracies, complete partial translations, compose or approve chants and publish

liturgical books in a form that testify to the stability achieved while also truly worthy of the

mysteries being celebrated. Beyond that, the Pope called for a reevaluation of national

liturgical commissions, their past activity, both positive and negative, as well as their

composition and activity and, in view of the fact that they are a part of the process of

adaptation and inculturation, to ensure their members are truly competent (no. 20).

The Pope reminded diocesan bishops that, as the principal dispensers of the mysteries

of God and governors, promoters and guardians of the entire liturgical life of the Church

entrusted to them (CD, no. 15), they must be convinced of the importance of such

celebrations in the life of the faithful, recognize the necessity of liturgical catechesis and rely

on the assistance of the diocesan commission for the promotion of the Sacred Liturgy. This

latter must act according to the mind and directives of the bishop, relying on his authority and

encouragement to carry out its work properly (no. 21).

The activity of the CDWDS and its relationship to particular churches and

conferences of bishops came into focus during the course of a special meeting of John Paul

necessary than ever to intensify liturgical life within our communities by means of an appropriate formation of pastors and of all the faithful, with a view to the active, conscious and full participation in liturgical celebrations desired by the council." The Pope explains: "The liturgy offers the deepest and most effective answer to the yearning for the encounter with God." He also calls for the development of a "liturgical spirituality" that makes people aware that "Christ is the first 'liturgist' who never ceases to act in the Church and in the world through the Paschal Mystery continuously celebrated, and who associates the Church with himself, in praise of the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit." See JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Spiritus et Sponsa, December 4,2003, in AAS, 96 (2004), pp. 419-427; English translation in Origins, 33 (2003-2004), p. 541 and pp. 543-546, at p. 544, p. 545 and p. 546. 167

II and the officials of the Roman Curia with thirty-five American archbishops in 1989. This meeting provided, in the words of the Pope, "an occasion for a most fruitful reflection and discussion on important aspects of the Church's evangelizing role in your country, which will offer valuable points of reference for your future ministry."104 Among the talks given by various dicasterial heads included one by the Prefect of the CDWDS, Cardinal Eduardo

Martinez Somalo. His presentation provided a glimpse into the workings of the Congregation and its interaction with the particular churches as well as conferences of bishops. The address raises some of the ongoing concerns on the part of the Holy See regarding the liturgy, including a number of matters addressed in this chapter. It also provided an overview of some of the projects that were being undertaken by the dicastery in this period including the question of adaptations and inculturation, the translation of liturgical books, and the relationship between the ordained and non-ordained.

The address was actually entitled "Liturgy and the Sacraments with Particular

Emphasis on the Sacrament of Reconciliation."105 The Cardinal Prefect recalled how, at the beginning of his pontificate, Pope John Paul had taught that "a very close and organic bond exists between the renewal of the liturgy and the renewal of the Church" and how, in his

Letter Dominicae cenae, the Pope wrote: "The Church not only acts but also expresses

104JOHN PAUL II, Letter to Bishops of the United States, March 19, 1989 in AAS, 81 (1989), pp. 1048-1050. The meeting was held March 8-11, 1989.

105CARDINAL EDUARDO MARTINEZ SOMALO, Address "Liturgy and the Sacraments, with Particular Emphasis upon the Sacrament of Reconciliation," in Origins, 18 (1988-1989), pp. 693- 695. 168 herself in the liturgy, lives by the liturgy and draws from the liturgy the strength for her life."

Such a perspective carried with it a number of implications. According to the Prefect:

No liturgical- celebration can be considered a private action; each celebration belongs to the Church, the sacrament of unity. Therefore each liturgical action should be treated in harmony with the indications given by the Church, without taking liberties by adding rules of one's own fantasy. This will guarantee respect for the rites themselves, assure the validity of the sacraments and show respect for the religious feeling of the faithful.106

Cardinal Martinez Somalo explained how the Congregation was acquainted with the liturgical life of a particular church or the churches in a particular region or nation. This information comes from various sources: correspondence between the Congregation and the presidents of bishops' conferences as well as the liturgical commissions of such conferences; the bi-annual visits of presidents, vice presidents and general secretaries of the conferences

(which offer occasion for a better understanding of the situation of the region in question); reception of newsletters and other publications of the conferences; the ad limina visits as well as the quinquennial reports submitted in advance of these visits; and letters from individual bishops and lay faithful seeking information and clarification or even reporting abuses.

The address of Cardinal Martinez Somalo then raised several matters of particular concern. (1) Any liturgical experimentation, if necessary or opportune, may only be permitted by written authorization from the Congregation, and it must be done according to precise and

fixed rules under the responsibility of the competent authority.107 (2) National and diocesan

106Ibid., p. 694.

107Ibid. We can see how some of the matters touched upon by the Prefect would give rise to further documentation to guide the liturgical renewal. Significant among these was the Instruction on Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy Varietates legitimae, January 25, 1994, in AAS, 87 (1995), pp. 288-314; English translation in Origins, 23 (1993-1994), pp. 745-756. This Instruction provides the principles and practical norms to be followed for a more substantial adaptation than those already 169 liturgical commissions have the duty to express the mind of the bishops and to translate what they intend into practice. (3) The problem of inclusive language is more than a question of discrimination but one touching upon biblical and theological questions and, therefore, is the purview not only of the CDWDS but other congregations as well.108 (4) Extraordinary

provided for in the liturgical books. The Instruction situates such inculturation within the context of the mystery of the universal Church which, for all its local manifestations, must always be related back to that universality. Against ecclesiological theories that would deny this universality, the Instruction declares: "The Church of Christ is made present and signified in a given place and in a given time by the local or particular churches, which through the liturgy reveal the Church in its true nature. That is why every particular church must be united with the universal Church not only in belief and sacraments, but also in those practices received through the Church as part of the uninterrupted apostolic tradition." In addition, inculturation may not alter or infringe upon those substantial matters over which the Church has no power since they are directly connected to the will of Christ and thus constitute the unchangeable part of the liturgy such that "to break the link the sacraments have with Christ and thus, with the very beginnings of the Church, would no longer be to inculturate them but to empty them of their substance." Among possible adaptations, the Instruction identifies the following: language (taking into account the fact it must always express the truths of the faith according to the various literary genres used in the Sacred Liturgy); music and singing (with necessary vigilance as to ensure the biblical and liturgical inspiration of such texts as well as their literary quality); gestures and postures (ensuring that those which touch upon validity are preserved and those that serve to highlight various ministries are not obscured; in this context, the issue of hand-clapping, rhythmic swaying and dance movements is acknowledged as having a place in the liturgy on the condition they are always an expression of true communal prayer, expressive of adoration, praise, offering and supplication, and not merely a performance); sacred art, including the shape and location of the altar and its decoration, the place for the proclamation of the Word, the place of baptism, liturgical furnishings, vessels, vestments and colours, taking into account the materials, forms and colours in use in particular areas; and finally, manifestations of popular devotion. While cautioning against their introduction into the liturgy, which is superior to them, the Instruction exhorts local ordinaries to organize such devotions, encourage them as supports for the life and faith of Christians, purify them when necessary so that they are permeated by the Gospel, and ensure they do not replace liturgical celebrations or become mixed up with them. The Instruction sets down precise norms for the carrying out of such inculturation.

108Ibid. The matter of translating accurately the liturgical books would be the object of the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, March 28, 2001 in AAS, 93 (2001), pp. 685-726; English translation in Origins, 31 (2001-2002), pp. 19-32. This was the Fifth Instruction on the Right Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the others being: Inter oecumenici, September 26,1964; Tres abhinc annos, May 4,1967; Liturgicae instaurationes, September 5,1970; and Varietates legitimae, January 25, 1994 (concerning the Roman Liturgy and inculturation). Liturgiam authenticam lays down the authoritative norms by which the provisions of SC, no. 36 are to be applied in the vernacular translation of the texts of the Roman liturgy. 170 ministers may function only when ordinary ministers (i.e. bishops, priests, deacons) are not present in sufficient numbers. He concluded:

Council texts have reaffirmed that it is the duty of the bishops to promote and guide liturgical life in their dioceses and to lead the priests wisely in the most opportune manner to respect the one discipline of the church. This means that it is necessary to have the courage to act in a timely way when there is need to resist that which is contrary to the laws and prescribed usage in the celebration of the Liturgy. In this way the faithful will not be disoriented by so called "abuses," and the celebration of Mass will be a glory to God and useful to the Church. In this regard, please allow me to recall the recommendation made in the final report of the 1985 extraordinary Synod of Bishops: "The Bishops should not merely correct abuses but should also clearly explain to everyone the theological foundation of the sacramental discipline of the liturgy."109

2.8 Summary

From the promulgation of the new Roman Missal in 1969 until the beginning of the third millennium, both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II urged conformity to the norms contained in the GIRM as well as other liturgical legislation.110 At the same time, in order to

109Ibid., p. 695. The Cardinal adds: "This dicastery declares itself to be always at the service of the bishops (cf. Pastor bonus, 64), and it expresses the hope for an ever growing spirit of fraternal collaboration in everything that might contribute to the divine worship and to the sacramental life of the People of God" (ibid.).

noIn fact, on Holy Thursday, 2000, the Jubilee Year, Pope John Paul II approved a new Missal, the third typical edition which was not published until February 22, 2002. In a speech to liturgists in the Archdiocese of Chicago, the Prefect of the CDWDS, Cardinal Francis Arinze, described some of its features. He noted how the introductory documents traced a line of continuity from the very beginnings, through to the Council of Trent and the Missal of Pius V right up to the present day. These include the Apostolic Constitution of Paul VI promulgating the Missal in 1969, as well as the Decrees of the CDWDS for the three editions of 1970, 1975 and 2000. The Prefect then gave an overall picture of the GIRM and commented on some of its significant features including singing, movements and posture, silence, the Prayers of the Faithful and the Eucharistic Prayer. The Cardinal proceeded to comment on new provisions including Ritual Masses, Masses for special needs, votive Masses (including a Mass in honour of Divine Mercy) and Masses for the dead. Finally, the Cardinal addressed the question of adaptation and inculturation, noting three levels. The simplest adaptations are those permitted by the GIRM, such as the choice of certain rites or texts that 171 facilitate the extensive liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council, the Holy

See continued to produce Instructions, Directories and other documents governing adaptations, translations, Masses for special groups, the celebration of Sundays in the absence of priests and so forth.

Among the various concerns raised in this period are: reaffirming the doctrine of the

Eucharist, especially the sacrificial nature of the Mass; the absolute necessity of the ordained ministerial priesthood and an authentic understanding of the role of the laity in the celebration of the liturgy; the centrality of the Eucharistic Prayer; various disciplinary matters pertaining to the Communion rite, including Communion under both kinds, Communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers of Communion, sacramental sharing, certain special cases

(persons with celiac disease, priests unable to consume wine, persons with disabilities, the divorced and remarried), the proper disposition for receiving Holy Communion and the relations of this Sacrament to the Sacrament of Penance; the posture for the reception of

Communion and sacred vessels; the importance of worship of the Eucharist outside Mass and the responsibility for the moderation of the Sacred Liturgy by ecclesiastical authority. Often reiterated in this period is the importance of liturgical formation and catechesis with the goal of enhancing and strengthening the Church's worship and eradicating abuses which not only respond to the needs, preparation and culture of participants. Then there are those that are within the competence of diocesan bishops or conferences of bishops, such as the regulation of concelebration, norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds, the construction and ordering of churches, the translation of the Roman Missal, and incorporation, with the recognitio of the Apostolic See, of adaptations as permitted by the GIRM and the Ordo Missae, including gestures and postures of the faithful, texts for the entrance, offertory and Communion chants, the greeting of peace and the manner of receiving Holy Communion. Finally, as to a more extensive adaptation and inculturation, the bishops conferences are to follow the directives of SC, no. 40, Ad gentes, no. 22, as well as those contained in the Instruction Varietates legitimae. (See CARDINAL FRANCIS ARINZE, Address, October 11, 2003, in Notitiae, 40 [2004], pp. 15-28.) 172 have a deleterious effect on the worship offered by the Church but which contribute to weakening the life and mission of the Church.

As the Church entered the third millennium and as John Paul II drew near to the end of his pontificate, he would renew once again the teaching of the Church on the Holy

Eucharist in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and he would mandate the preparation of yet another Instruction that would once again urge conformity to liturgical norms as well as the eradication of liturgical abuses. This Instruction is the subject of the following chapter. CHAPTER III

THE INSTRUCTION ITSELF

Introduction

The principal focus of this chapter is an examination and analysis of the contents of the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, both those norms in continuity with previous documents of the Holy See as well as new norms and emphases. This discussion will be preceded by a brief treatment of the encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, touching upon some of the major themes covered by Pope John Paul II as he recalled the Church's doctrine concerning the mystery of the Eucharist and its celebration. In this context, we shall also consider the Pope's emphasis upon the dignity of the Eucharistic celebration in which he called not only for the faithful observance of liturgical norms but also for the preparation of a juridical text that resulted in the publication of Redemptionis Sacramentum. After a brief review of the process by which the Instruction was prepared, we shall proceed to consider a number of the matters revisited in the Instruction including: theological concerns (especially the meaning of active participation); the distinction between the role of the laity and that of the ordained; the proper celebration of the Mass including, first and foremost, the centrality of the Eucharistic Prayer; the distribution and reception of Holy Communion and attendant matters; the worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass; and the responsibilities associated with

the moderation and regulation of the Eucharistic liturgy. We shall also treat those provisions

that represent something unique, including the Instruction's delineation and categorization

of abuses as well as its establishment of a process by which the faithful can make known their 174 complaints regarding alleged liturgical abuses. In our treatment of these matters we shall make reference, as necessary, to the foundational legislative documents, especially the

General Instruction of the Roman Missal and the Code of Canon Law.

3.1 The Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia

On Holy Thursday, 2003, Pope John Paul II gave to the Church his encyclical letter

Ecclesia de Eucharistia. He signed it during the Mass of the Lord's Supper and explained:

From the time I began my ministry as the Successor of Peter, I have always marked Holy Thursday, the day of the Eucharist and of the priesthood, by sending a letter to all the priests of the world. This year, the twenty-fifth of my Pontificate, I wish to involve the whole Church more fully in this Eucharistic reflection, also as a way of thanking the Lord for the gift of the Eucharist and the priesthood: "Gift and Mystery."1

Among the salient points of doctrine in chapter one of the encyclical is the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist which, through the ministry of the priest, makes sacramentally present at each Mass, the body given up and the blood poured out by Christ for the salvation of the

world. This does not consist of a repetition of the one sacrifice of the Cross, or its

multiplication in time and space, but a re-presentation (representatio) of that one sacrifice

until the end of time.

The Eucharist is a sacrifice in the strict sense, and not only in a general way, as if it were simply a matter of Christ's offering himself to the faithful as their spiritual food. The gift of his love and obedience to the point of giving his life is in the first place a gift to his Father. Certainly it is a gift given for our sake, and indeed that of all humanity, yet it is first and foremost a gift to the Father (no. 13).

'JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, no. 7, April 17, 2003, inAAS, 95 (2003), pp. 433-475, at p. 437; Englishtranslaiion'mEucharistic Documents for the New Millennium (= Eucharistic Documents), Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 2004, pp. 3-41, at p.6. 175

The Pope warns against the Eucharist being reduced to a fraternal meal, and emphasized the transcendent dimension of the Eucharist which makes present Christ's sacrifice in which he offers himself to the Father. That Christ intended the Eucharist to be understood as a sacrifice is indicated by the very words which constitute the Institution

Narrative.

In instituting it, he did not merely say: 'This is my body,' 'this is my blood,' but went on to add: 'which is given for you,' 'which is poured out for you.' Jesus did not simply state that what he was giving them to eat and drink was his body and his blood; he also expressed its sacrificial meaning and made sacramentally present his sacrifice which would soon be offered on the Cross for the salvation of all (no. 12).2

A second important theme highlighted in the encyclical is the doctrine of the real presence.

The sacramental re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which-in the words of Paul VI-"is called 'real' not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were 'not real,' but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present.

Among the consequences of the doctrine of the real presence is the affirmation of the practice of the Church to worship the Eucharist outside of Mass which, the Pope notes, has been

abandoned in some places. He declares that "the worship of the Eucharist outside of the Mass

is of inestimable value for the life of the Church."3 This practice, which has been "repeatedly

2The Pope does not neglect the eschatalogical character of the Eucharist which, he explains, was expressed in the acclamation following the consecration. "The Eucharist is a straining towards the goal, a foretaste of the fullness of joy promised by Christ (cf. John 15:11); it is in some way the anticipation of heaven, the 'pledge of future glory.' In the Eucharist, everything speaks of confident waiting 'in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.' Those who feed on Christ in the Eucharist need not wait until the hereafter to receive eternal life: they already possess it on earth, as the first-fruits of a future fullness which will embrace man in his totality" (no. 18).

3The Pope continues: "It is pleasant to spend time with him [Christ], to lie close to his breast like the beloved disciple and to feel the infinite love present in his heart. If in our time Christians must be distinguished above all by the "art of prayer," how can we not feel a renewed need to spend 176 praised and recommended by the Magisterium," is also "supported by the example of many saints." The Pope writes that a "Christian community desirous of contemplating the face of

Christ... cannot fail also to develop this aspect of Eucharistic worship, which prolongs and increases the fruits of our communion in the body and blood of the Lord."4

Another matter of doctrinal importance is the intimate relationship between the

Eucharist and the ordained priesthood. In the third chapter, "The Apostolicity of the Eucharist

and of the Church," the Pope recalls that the full reality of the Church cannot exist without

apostolic succession, and that there can be no true Eucharist without a priest validly ordained by a bishop. Therefore, the Eucharist "is a gift that radically transcends the power of the

assembly.... The assembly gathered together for the celebration of the Eucharist, if it is to be

a truly eucharistic assembly, absolutely requires the presence of an ordained priest as its

president...; the community is by itself incapable of providing an ordained minister." This

truth, the necessity of a validly ordained priest, is given expression in the very liturgy itself

when, in the heart of the Eucharist, it is the priest alone who proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer.

time in spiritual converse, in silent adoration, in heartfelt love before Christ present in the Most holy Sacrament? How often, dear brothers and sisters, have I experienced this, and drawn from it strength, consolation, and support" (no. 25).

4The doctrinal matters addressed in Chapter One of the Encyclical, "The Mystery of Faith" bring together the themes Pope John Paul II touched upon in his first encyclical letter, Redemptor Hominis, no. 20, when he presented the Eucharist under three aspects: "It is at one and the same time a sacrifice-sacrament, a communion-sacrament and a presence-sacrament." Thus, the Eucharist is a sacrament to be offered, received and adored. In the offering, it is essentially the work of Christ who associates the Church with him in this task and who calls those who are the successors of the apostles and the priests, the co-workers of bishops, to preside over and renew the offering inpersona Christi. In the receiving, it is an expression of both the visible and external communion with the Church as also the means of deepening the interior communion that is the life of grace, hence the necessity of proper dispositions as well as norms governing who may receive. In the adoring, on account of Christ's continued presence, the practice of Eucharistic worship outside of Mass. These matters will be addressed by the Instruction in its various chapters and provisions. 177

The Eucharist also expresses this sense of apostolicity. As the Second Vatican Council teaches, "the faithful join in the offering of the Eucharist by virtue of their royal priesthood," yet it is the ordained priest who, "acting in the person of Christ, brings about the Eucharistic Sacrifice and offers it to God in the name of all the people." For this reason, the Roman Missal prescribes that only the priest should recite the Eucharistic Prayer, while the people participate in faith and in silence (n. 28).

Nevertheless, the Pope is careful to recall that the priest who celebrates the Eucharist and acts in the person of Christ the Head does not possess the Eucharist but is its servant for the benefit of the community. Similarly, the Christian community does not possess the Eucharist but must receive it as a gift.

The encyclical addresses the fact that some communities lack a priest and therefore lack the regular celebration of the Eucharist. Where provision has been made for the laity to lead Communion services on Sunday, this solution "must be considered merely temporary, while the community awaits a priest." The lack of regular access to the Eucharistic celebration should motivate these communities to work for vocations to the priesthood.5

Another teaching affirmed in the encyclical concerns communicatio in sacris. The

Pope notes that the Eucharist is a manifestation in a visible manner of the Church's invisible unity, a unity outwardly expressed by fidelity to the teaching of the apostles, to the sacraments and to the hierarchical order of the Church. As a result, the Eucharist cannot be employed as the means of communion but presupposes a communion already existing.

Among the consequences of this understanding is that Catholics may not receive Communion

5"The sacramental incompleteness of these celebrations should above all inspire the whole community to pray with greater fervor that the Lord will send laborers into his harvest. It should also be an incentive to mobilize all the resources needed for an adequate pastoral promotion of vocations, without yielding to the temptation to seek solutions that lower the moral and formative standards demanded of candidates for the priesthood" (no. 32). 178 from the ministers of those communities that lack valid orders.6 Nor may Catholics satisfy the Sunday precept by attending the services of such ecclesial communities.7 The encyclical also restates Church discipline on the reception of Communion by baptized non-Catholics.8

On the proper dispositions for receiving Holy Communion, the encyclical affirms

Church teaching and discipline. While Eucharistic Communion is an expression and means of deepening external communion with the Church (manifest in the profession of the same faith, the reception of the sacraments and acceptance of the authority of the Church's pastors), it is also, very importantly, the expression of that invisible communion in the life of grace. Recalling the words of St. Paul, the writings of St. John Chrysostom, and the teaching of the Catechism, the Pope teaches:

6"The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made toward full visible unity" (no. 30).

7"It is unthinkable to substitute for Sunday Mass ecumenical celebrations of the word or services of common prayer with Christians from the aforementioned ecclesial communities, or even participation in their own liturgical services. Such celebrations and services, however praiseworthy in certain situations, prepare for the goal of full communion, including eucharistic communion, but they cannot replace it" (no. 30).

8Since non-Catholics lack visible communion with the Church, it is not as a rule possible for them to receive Communion, although there are certain situations in which they can be admitted. Eastern Christians who possess valid Orders and, hence, a valid Eucharist, may receive Penance, Communion and the Anointing of the Sick "if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed" but, in the case of members of ecclesial communities, on account of their lack of valid orders and, hence, valid Eucharist, the provisions are more restrictive. Speaking of the conditions of c. 844, the Pope says: "these conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases.... The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions-who have a right to our witness to the truth-and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity" (no. 46). 179

I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the church there remains in force now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle's stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, "one must first confess one's sins, when one is aware of mortal sin" (no. 36).

This has important implications for determining who may be admitted to the Eucharist and who might be denied. Without specifying any particular situation, the encyclical makes a distinction that is the foundation for why the Church might, in certain specific situations, refuse Eucharistic Communion.

The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and, out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" are not to be admitted to Eucharistic Communion.9

Regarding the subject of active participation in the liturgy, the encyclical recalls some of the positive results of the liturgical reform inaugurated by the Second Vatican Council but notes that, alongside the various benefits of a more conscious, active and fruitful participation

in the Eucharist on the part of the faithful, there are certain shadows. These include the

abandonment, in some places, of Eucharistic adoration. The Pope then sets forth some

additional abuses that are the result of what he calls a "reductive understanding" of the

9No. 37. There is a distinction here worth noting. On the one hand, the Church might find it necessary to refuse the Sacraments, particularly the reception of Holy Communion, to those visibly linked to the Church by the tria vinculo, on account of public stances contrary to Church teaching and not necessarily because such stances indicate, at the subjective level, a state of mortal sin. At the same time, there are those who, although not visibly bound to the Church, may for certain reasons be admitted to the sacraments. This principle was enunciated in the Decree on Ecumenism, no. 8: "The expression of unity very generally forbids common worship. Grace to be obtained sometimes commends it." One could also then say that the expression of unity may even necessitate denying the Eucharist to those whose outward actions offend that unity. 180 meaning of the Eucharist. To this end, the Pope describes the goal of his encyclical: "It is my hope that the present Encyclical Letter will effectively help to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice, so that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery."10 Both heterodox doctrine and the practices which such doctrine gives rise to are the object of this encyclical and serve as the immediate context for the Instruction

Redemptionis Sacramentum. Many of the theological concerns of the Pope would be borne out in a number of the Instruction's various provisions." We see a harbinger of this in the pope's exhortation to observe the liturgical norms with fidelity.

I consider it my duty, therefore, to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave

10"In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation" (no. 10).

"An entire chapter of the encyclical is devoted to "The Dignity of the Eucharistic Celebration." Offering some exegetical commentary, the Pope recalls an episode prior to the Last Supper, that of the anointing at Bethany. He likens the dispositions and actions of this woman to the Church which, "fearing no extravagance," devotes the best of its resources in expressing wonder and adoration before the unsurpassable gift of the Eucharist. The Pope also compares the preparations and attentiveness with which the Church celebrates the Eucharist to Jesus' instruction to the disciples "to prepare carefully 'the large upper room' needed for the Passover Meal." Some of these preparations included the importance of outward forms which serve to evoke and emphasize the grandeur of the event being celebrated and which eventually led to the development of a particular form by which the Eucharistic liturgy was celebrated. It also encompassed the rich artistic heritage that created the environment in which the liturgy is celebrated including architecture, sculpture, painting and music. 181

shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist, resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist (no. 52).

Fidelity to liturgical norms is ultimately fidelity to the Church itself and a service to ecclesial communion. The Pope explains: "Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church" (no. 52). It is in this context that the Pope announces his decision to have the Roman Curia prepare a juridical document treating liturgical norms on the Eucharist.

Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands; it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality (no. 52).

Thus does the encyclical set in motion the process by which the Instruction Redemptionis

Sacramentum would be prepared.

3.2 Preparation of the Instruction

Pope John Paul II entrusted the work of preparing the new Instruction to the

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the

Discipline of the Sacraments. According to the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus, art. 48:

"The proper function of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and

safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world; so it has competence 182 in things that touch this matter in any way."12 According to art. 62 of the same Constitution:

"The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments does whatever pertains to the Apostolic See concerning the regulation of the sacred liturgy, primarily of the sacraments, without prejudice to the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith."13

In preparing the document, the cardinal and bishop members of the two congregations, some seventy persons altogether, were asked to identify the "shadows" of which Pope John Paul had written in his encyclical and to suggest those points they would like to see incorporated into the document. In addition, consultors and experts were also asked to suggest the matters to be addressed. The text then underwent a number of drafts before a final version was prepared. The work of preparing the various linguistic translations also took some time but, nevertheless, within two years of the encyclical, the Instruction was approved on March 19, 2004 by Pope John Paul n, who ordered it to be published and

12APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION, Pastor bonus, in AAS, p. 873; Annotated Code, p. 1475.

13Ibid., AAS, p. 876; Annotated Code, p. 1479. The entrustment of this work to the competencies of these two congregations manifests the relationship of the lex orandi and the lex credendi, for it is not possible to approach the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, especially the Eucharistic sacrifice, exclusively from the point of view of disciplinary considerations or disassociate its outward form and celebration from the doctrine it is meant to proclaim. We worship in a certain manner precisely because of what we believe. 183 observed immediately by all.14 It is dated March 25, 2004 and signed by the Prefect of the

CDWDS and its Secretary.15

The document is presented in the form of an Instruction. According to c. 34 §1:

"Instructions, namely, which set out the provisions of a law and develop the manner in which it is to be put into effect, are given for the benefit of those whose duty it is to execute the law, and they bind them in executing the law. Those who have executive power may, within the limits of their competence, lawfully publish such instructions."16 The provisions of the

14It was actually presented on April 23, 2004. The background for the preparation of this Instruction was provided by Cardinal Francis Arinze in "Commentaries on Redemptionis Sacramentum" a set of six compact discs produced by the Apostolate for Family Consecration, Bloomingdale, Ohio.

15It is the practice of the Curia to publish documents on dates of liturgical significance. In this context, the date of March 19, the solemnity of St. Joseph, is significant. As St. Joseph had custody of Jesus, the Church has a responsibility for everything that pertains to the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Furthermore, the event of the mystery of the Incarnation, foreshadowed in the Solemnity of the Annunciation celebrated on March 25, is renewed and made present in the Eucharistic celebration where, sacramentally, the Word becomes flesh. As Pope John Paul notes in no. 55 of his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia: "In a certain sense Mary lived her Eucharistic faith even before the institution of the Eucharist, by the very fact that she offered her virginal womb for the Incarnation of God's Word. The Eucharist, while commemorating the passion and resurrection, is also in continuity with the incarnation. At the Annunciation Mary conceived the Son of God in the physical reality of his body and blood, thus anticipating within herself what to some degree happens sacramentally in every believer who receives, under the signs of bread and wine, the Lord's body and blood."

16An important point to be treated in the fourth chapter is whether or not this document does indeed correspond to the juridic nature of instructions as described in c. 34. Instructions are intended to urge conformity to already existing law and are addressed to those responsible for executing the law. Furthermore, as the second paragraph of the canon cited states: "The regulations of an instruction do not derogate from the law, and if there are any which cannot be reconciled with the provisions of the law, they have no force." We will consider the ways in which the Instruction not only goes beyond existing law, but in some places, runs contrary to that law. Furthermore, this Instruction is not only addressed to the normally intended audience (executors of the law), but to all the faithful. 184

Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum apply only to the Roman Rite and other rites of the

Latin Church acknowledged by law.

The Instruction is divided into eight chapters, preceded by a Preamble and finishing with a brief conclusion. The preamble is comprised of thirteen articles, providing the theological and canonical foundation for liturgical norms, the various and possible reasons for abuses in the liturgy, the consequences of such abuses and a "liturgical charter of rights" of Christ's faithful.

Chapter One, "The Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy"(nn. 14-35), considers those responsible for this regulation, beginning with the Apostolic See (and its pertinent dicasteries), the diocesan bishop, conferences of bishops, priests and deacons. Chapter Two,

"The Participation of the Lay Christian Faithful in the Eucharistic Celebration" (nn. 36-47), explores, firstly, the meaning of active and conscious participation and then proceeds to a consideration of the different ministries of the laity in the course of the celebration of the

Mass. •

Chapter Three, "The Proper Celebration of the Mass" (nn. 48-79), is comprised of four sections: the matter for the Eucharist; the Eucharistic Prayer; other parts of the Mass; and the joining of other rites to the Mass. Chapter Four, "Holy Communion" (nn. 80-107), examines aspects of the Communion Rite. It has four sections: the dispositions for the reception of Holy Communion; the distribution of Holy Communion; the Communion of priests; and Communion under both kinds. Chapter Five, "Certain Other Matters concerning the Eucharist" (nn. 109-128), addresses the following: the place of celebration; various circumstances relating to the Mass (frequency of celebration, celebret, language, presence 185 of groups, movements, associations and religious communities, suspension of Mass, the unnecessary multiplication of Masses and the law related to Mass stipends); sacred vessels; and liturgical vesture.

Chapter Six, "The Reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist and Eucharistic Worship outside Mass" (nn. 129-145), moves from the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice to matters surrounding the cult of the Eucharist: reservation; forms of worship outside of Mass

(exposition, visits to churches in which the Blessed Sacrament is reserved, perpetual adoration, the formation of guilds and associations for carrying out such adoration and the approval of their statutes); Eucharistic processions and Eucharistic congresses.

Chapter Seven, "Extraordinary Functions of the Lay Faithful" (nn. 146-168), treats some of the extraordinary functions that may be carried out by the laity. These include: extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion; preaching; particular celebrations carried out in the absence of a priest; and the role of those who have left the clerical state.

Chapter Eight, "Remedies" (nn. 169-184), distinguishes various degrees of abuses: the most serious crimes (graviora delicto); grave matters; and other abuses. It also addresses the responsibility of diocesan bishops and other ordinaries in dealing with reports and evidence of abuses, the role of the Apostolic See, and the process of making complaints, including the right of the faithful to report abuses to the diocesan bishop and those equivalent to him in law and even to the Apostolic See. Finally, the Instruction concludes with brief exhortations (nn. 185-186) urging fidelity to liturgical norms as well as the norms contained within the Instruction. 186

Given that the theological foundation of Redemptionis Sacramentum is the encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and in view of the request, made during the course of the

Instruction's presentation that it be read as a continuation of the encyclical, we shall endeavour to identify those norms of the Instruction that are in direct continuity with Ecclesia de Eucharistia. Nevertheless, many of the concerns raised by the Instruction had been dealt with on a number of occasions since the promulgation of the Missal born of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, as we have seen in the previous chapter.

3.3 The Preamble of the Instruction

The Instruction begins by explaining that in the Church's Eucharistic doctrine the

"whole spiritual wealth" of the Church is found and that the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the entire Christian life (LG, no. 11) and the causative force of the very beginnings of the Church (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, no. 21). This Eucharistic doctrine has been taught with both "thoughtful care" and "great authority." In light of that teaching and

in view of the centrality of the Eucharist for the life of the Church, the Instruction describes

its purpose as follows:

In order that especially in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy the Church might duly safeguard so great a mystery in our own time as well, the Supreme Pontiff has mandated this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, should prepare this Instruction treating of certain matters pertaining to the discipline of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Those things found in this Instruction are therefore to be read in the continuity with the above-mentioned Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia. 187

It is not the intent of the Instruction to provide a compendium of norms but to deal with some elements of already existing liturgical norms with the goal of ensuring their deeper appreciation and observance. Nevertheless, it does set forth some new norms to explain and complement earlier ones and to instruct bishops, priests, deacons and all the lay faithful how each is to carry them out in accord with their own responsibilities and means.

The Instruction explains that obedience to liturgical norms is more than outward conformity but also requires an interior conformity, inspired by a faith and charity which unite the faithful to Christ and to one another. Such conformity is also a sign and expression of respect for the long process by which these norms developed, an appreciation that should engender respect and compliance.17 The Preamble then proceeds to describe the effects of abuses in the liturgy, namely, obscuring the Catholic faith and doctrine regarding the

Eucharist and preventing the faithful from experiencing that which took place at Emmaus by rendering more difficult the recognition of Christ's presence in the Breaking of the Bread

(no. 6).

The Instruction offers some possible reasons that liturgical abuses arise. The first

stems from a false notion of liberty. Authentic freedom does not mean doing as one pleases

but what is fitting and right, and this extends not only to divine precepts but also

ecclesiastical laws, with due respect for the nature of these laws (no. 7). A second source of

abuses in the liturgy is the result of ecumenical initiatives which, even if well-intentioned,

give rise to practices that are "contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her

17"A11 that is said in this Instruction is directed toward such a conformity of our own understanding with that of Christ, as expressed in the words and the rites of the Liturgy" (no. 5). 188 faith" (no. 8). A third reason offered is an ignorance which leads some to reject those elements within the sacred liturgy "whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized."18

The Instruction points out that, as noted by the Council (SC, no. 21), the Church has no power over those things established by Christ and which represent the unchangeable elements of the liturgy. The faithful would suffer grave harm if the bond which the

Sacraments have with Christ who instituted them and which are connected to the events of the Church's founding were broken. The use of unapproved texts and rites can only contribute to the weakening of the relationship between the lex orandi and the lex credendi

(no. 10).19

Recalling once again the words of John Paul II in his encyclical Ecclesia de

Eucharistia, the Instruction declares that the mystery of the Eucharist "is too great for anyone

to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its

universal ordering would be obscured." Among the consequences of arbitrary changes and

adaptations include injury to the substantial unity of the Roman rite, actions inconsistent with

the people's desire for God, the weakening of pastoral care and liturgical renewal, and

18As the Constitution on the Liturgy states, the prayers, orations and songs in the liturgy "are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse" of the scriptures from which they receive their meaning (SC, no. 24). The visible and outward signs used to express divine realities and chosen by Christ or the Church witness to the apostolic and unbroken tradition and, therefore, should be "wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms" in order to be handed on to future generations (no. 9).

19In his encyclical letter Mediator Dei, Pius XII warned against interpreting the phrase lex orandi, lex credendi to mean that the liturgy is the proving-ground for the truths of the faith. He suggests that it is more correct to say lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi, let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer (nn. 46-48). 189 depriving the faithful of their patrimony and heritage. Furthermore, arbitrariness is detrimental to the right of the faithful to liturgical celebrations that are expressions of the

Church's life in accord with her tradition and discipline. Among other consequences, abuses lead to uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the people and vigorous opposition, all of which contradict the very meaning of the Eucharist which by its nature is meant to bring about the communion of divine life and the unity of the Church

(no. 11).

In a mini-charter of rights, the Instruction says that the faithful have the right to the

liturgy celebrated according to prescribed liturgical books and norms. It is their right that the

Mass be celebrated in an integral manner according to the entire doctrine of the Church and

that it be carried out in such way as to truly stand out as the sacrament of unity to the

exclusion of anything that might lead to divisions and factions in the Church (no. 12).

Finally, the Preamble situates the contents of the Instruction within the context of the

mission of the Church which must always be vigilant concerning the proper and worthy

celebration of the Eucharist. Thus will the last chapter address the different ways in which

the liturgical norms are intimately related to the supreme law, the salus animarum (no. 13).

3.4 Matters Revisited

A number of major themes that were the object of repeated attention on the part of

the Holy See in the period following the promulgation of the Missal in 1969 receive renewed

attention and treatment in Redemptionis Sacramentum. Among these are theological concerns 190 such as the meaning of active participation; distinctions and differences between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of all the faithful, which is a concern that runs throughout the document while also receiving the attention of two chapters; lay participation in the Mass and extraordinary functions carried out by the laity. In addition, the

Instruction recalls the centrality of the Eucharistic Prayer and gives considerable attention to a number of matters related to the Communion Rite and the Distribution and Reception of

Holy Communion. It reaffirms the importance of the worship of the Eucharist outside Mass and gives significant emphasis to the role of those responsible for the regulation and moderation of the Sacred Liturgy.

3.4.1 Theological Concerns

We have noted how, in the course of the years following the promulgation of the reformed liturgy, the nature of the participation called for by the Second Vatican Council was

explored so as to avoid certain distortions and exaggerations. One of the primary theological

issues addressed by the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum is the distinction between the

priesthood of the all the baptized and that of the ordained. In fact, two chapters are devoted

to the role of the laity. Chapter Two deals with their participation in the liturgy, which is a

right and obligation that belongs to all the faithful by reason of their baptism, and Chapter

Seven treats the matters arising from situations in which the lay faithful are called to exercise,

by temporary deputation, certain offices and functions in both the celebration of the liturgy

as also in pastoral ministry as the result of a shortage of ordained ministers. 191

Concerning the role which belongs to the lay faithful by virtue of baptism, the

Instruction seeks to offer a corrective to mistaken notions of the active participation called for by the Council and by subsequent conciliar and post-conciliar documents and reforms.20

The Instruction situates the participation of the lay faithful in the theological meaning of both the Eucharist and the mystery of the Church, recalling that the celebration of the Mass is an action of Christ and the Church and is the centre of the whole Christian life for all members of the Church. These members participate in the liturgy according to various orders and

ministries (cf. 1 Pet 2:9). The Instruction repeats the teaching of the Dogmatic Constitution

on the Church Lumen gentium, no. 10, that the common priesthood of the faithful and the

ministerial or hierarchical priesthood, while different in essence as well as in degree, are

nonetheless ordered to one another, each participating in their own way in the one priesthood

of Christ (no. 36). This participation derives from baptism which deputes the faithful for the

work of worship, so that they might offer themselves "as a living and holy sacrifice." For this

reason, the participation of the lay faithful in the liturgy of the Church is more than "mere

presence but flows from and is an exercise of that dignity received in Baptism" (no. 37). A

key to the proper understanding of this full participation is to be found in the teaching of the

Church on the Eucharist as both meal and sacrifice (no. 38).21

20The Second Vatican Council declared: "Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations, which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy..."(SC, no. 14). 21This point was made rather eloquently in an already cited Ac? limina address given by Pope John Paul II to American Bishops from the Northwestern region of the United States on October 9, 1998 (cf. Chapter II, footnote no. 248). 192

The Instruction notes the different avenues to facilitate such participation, including acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, canticles, actions, movements, gestures and even sacred silence. Furthermore, the liturgical books admit of appropriate creativity and adaptation according to the needs, comprehension and gifts of the people through songs, melodies, choice of prayers and readings, the homily, the prayers of the faithful, occasional explanatory remarks, seasonal decorations, allowing the introduction into each liturgy of a certain variety. However, the power of the liturgy derives not from frequent alteration but in exploring the word of the Lord and the mysteries celebrated (no. 39). Even though a liturgical celebration is of its nature an external activity, this does not mean that everyone must have something to do beyond those actions and gestures common to the entire celebration, an attitude which the Instruction calls "superficial," and which must be overcome by

catechetical instruction to instill a sense of deep wonder and adoration (no. 40).22

22Among the means by which this deeper understanding of interior participation is to be nurtured are the celebration of the liturgy of the hours and the use of sacramentals and exercises of piety, especially the rosary. While these latter are not acts of liturgy in the strict sense, the Instruction notes that they possess a particular importance and dignity, have a connection to the liturgical life, have been sanctioned by the Magisterium and can help people to receive the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, to meditate on the mysteries of redemption and to imitate the example of the saints (no. 41). Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mediator Dei, spoke of the importance and benefit of personal piety (nn. 28-33). The CDWDS published a Directory on popular piety in 2001 for the harmonization of various forms of popular piety with the liturgy. (See CDWDS, Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy, December 17, 2001, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2001.) In The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 202, Cardinal Ratzinger writes: "Popular piety is the soil without which the liturgy cannot thrive. Unfortunately, in parts of the Liturgical Movement and on the occasion of the post conciliar reform, it has frequently been held in contempt or even abused. Instead, one must love it, purifying and guiding it where necessary, but always accepting it with great reverence, even when it seems alien or alienating, as the dedicated sanctuary of faith in the hearts of the people. It is faith's secure inner rooting; when it dries up, rationalism and sectarianism have an easy job. Tried and tested elements of popular piety may pass over them, into liturgical celebration, without officious and hasty fabrication, by a patient process of lengthy growth." 193

The Instruction warns against any understanding that would suggest that the community which gathers for worship does so of its own volition, capable of supplying what it needs for the Eucharist, including a priest to preside over it. The Eucharistic sacrifice celebrated by the priest with the faithful present is not a "concelebration" in the proper meaning of the word, and terminology such as "celebrating community" or "celebrating assembly" should be used judiciously (no. 42).23

Having set forth some foundational principles towards a correct understanding of the role of the laity in the celebration of the liturgy, the Instruction considers some examples of

23We have noted in the previous chapter that this was the object of a letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued very early in the pontificate of John Paul II, Sacerdotium ministeriale, August 6, 1983. Likewise, the emphasis in no. 42 upon the Church as ecclesia, which is related to the word klesis or "calling," draws attention to the nature and mystery of the Church as a gift from God, established from above, rather than a congregatio, a community that comes to be from below, as though in virtue of the individual wills of the community in the manner of a democratic body, capable of supplying for itself whatever is needed. The Church exists as the result of a divine initiative that brings people together in communio. Regarding this recommendation, that certain terms be employed judiciously, one commentator notes that in reading the Instruction, one has to be careful to make a distinction between those matters which constitute abuses, either explicitly or implicitly, and those which are recommendations. So, for example, no. 69 forbids the use of any formula of the Creed or Profession of Faith which is not found in duly approved liturgical books; this is no more than an exemplification of c. 846, § 1 that no one may add to, omit or alter the texts of the approved liturgical books. On the other hand, the above-mentioned directive regarding terminology has the character of a recommendation. (See J. HUELS, "New Eucharistic Discipline in the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum and the Need for a Reform of Canons 29-34," in Studies in Church Law, 2 (2006), pp. 33-59, at pp. 34-35). 194 the ministries of the lay faithful in the Eucharist. Drawing on c. 230 §2 as well as nn. 97 and

109 of the GIRM, the Instruction commends the exercise of ministries which should be distributed among the people (no. 43). In addition to those duly instituted in the ministries, there are also acolytes and lectors by temporary deputation as well as services preparatory to the Eucharist such as the preparing of hosts, the washing of linens and so forth. In accordance with no. 91 of the GIRM, the lay faithful are to do only those tasks that belong to them so that the liturgy can be celebrated worthily and appropriately (no. 44).

The Instruction warns against obscuring the complementary relationship that should exist between the activity of the clergy and that of the laity, especially in any way that leads

to a "clericalization" of the laity. Likewise, sacred ministers should not assume those

functions proper to the life and activity of the laity (no. 45). As for all who are called upon

to assist in the celebration of the liturgy, there are two qualifications: that they receive the

liturgical formation in accord with their age, condition, state of life and religious culture, and

that no one be selected whose appointment would cause consternation ( no. 46).24

The last article encourages the "noble custom" whereby boys or youth serve at the

altar as acolytes. The Instruction recalls that a great number of sacred ministers came from

24The Instruction Immensae caritatis of January 25, 1973 makes a similar twofold requirement when it states: "The person who has been appointed to be an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is necessarily to be duly instructed and should distinguish himself by his Christian life, faith and morals.... Let no one be chosen whose selection may cause scandal among the faithful" (no. 6). A common practice in many communities is a ministry sign-up weekend. This author has tended to move increasingly away from such practices, especially since some who volunteer lack the capacity or live in irregular marital situations or in relationships clearly ambiguous and contrary to the teaching of the Church. It is very difficult to explain to such persons why they should not take up public ministerial roles in the liturgy. It is imprudent to indiscriminately invite people to come forward for liturgical ministries, especially if they lack either the qualifications or their selection would indeed cause scandal among the faithful. 195 their ranks. The diocesan bishop makes the decision whether to allow girls or women to serve at the altar, in accordance with established norms (no. 47).25

The rather positive and affirming indications of the Constitution on the Sacred

Liturgy and other conciliar and post-cbnciliar documents give way in this Instruction to a more cautious and reserved treatment of the role of the lay faithful and the nature of their participation within the Sacred Liturgy. Nevertheless, throughout the document, there are, as we shall note, continual references to the various kinds of participation not only allowed but which are absolutely integral to the very nature of the Eucharist itself as a communal celebration and as an expression of the mystery of the Church. Clearly, there is a certain theological tension between the powerful affirmations of the dignity and role of the lay

25The admission of women/girls as servers at Mass had been the subject of vigorous debate. A decision of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts given on July 11, 1992 opened the door to their participation. The dubium was presented "Whether serving at the altar is reckoned among the roles that lay people, both men and women, may exercise according to c. 230, § 2?" The response: "Affirmative, and according to the instruction to be given by the Apostolic See." Interestingly, the reply was given in 1992 but the "instruction" was not forthcoming until two years later when a Circular Letter of the CDWDS was sent to the presidents of the bishops' conferences providing directives and indications (Circular Letter Credo doveroso, March 15, 1994, mNotitiae, 30 [1994], pp. 333-335). It would seem as if situating lay involvement in the liturgy in the context of this deeper meaning of the Eucharist, while appropriate, need not have been limited to the lay faithful since even the clergy need to strive for that interior recollection so necessary in leading people in prayer. Furthermore, there are very few places where duly instituted lectors and acolytes carry out their ministry. Most fulfill these ministries by temporary deputation. The Synod on the Laity called for a re-examination of the provisions of the Motu proprio Ministeria quaedam. It was one of the considered accomplishments of the Second Vatican Council that the laity were considered subjects of the liturgy, by virtue of the deputation and dignity of baptism. Their participation in the liturgy is a profound expression of that dignity. The rather sparse treatment of this participation and the many warnings suggest a rather cautious approach to the post-conciliar reality. Nevertheless, a more extensive examination may not have been necessary given the fact that current legislation, especially as found in Chapter III of the GIRM, "The Duties and Ministries in the Mass," provide an adequate treatment of the same in profoundly positive theological, liturgical-juridical and pastoral terms. 196 faithful and the need to preserve the distinction between the nature of their participation and the role of those who act in persona Christi.

3.4.2 Differentiation of Roles

The Council taught that the liturgy is a manifestation of the Church hierarchically

arranged (SC, no. 26) and, throughout the period following the promulgation of the new

Missal, the Holy See emphasized the importance of preserving the distinction between the ministerial priesthood and that of all the faithful, as also the clarification of roles, especially

in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. Therefore, it is not surprising that this Instruction

pays close attention to the need of preserving and manifesting, in the course of the celebration

of the liturgy, the differentiation between the ordained and common priesthood.26 According

to the Instruction, a proper understanding of the role of the lay faithful vis-a-vis the role of

the priest, especially in the celebration of the Eucharist, is dependent upon an authentic

understanding of the mystery of the Church which is brought together not by human volition

but as the result of a call of God in the Holy Spirit. For this reason, Redemptionis

Sacramentum says that the Eucharist cannot be considered a concelebration in the exclusive

sense that the priest and people concelebrate together. For, the power to celebrate the

Eucharist is one that radically transcends the capacity of the community which "absolutely

requires an ordained priest who presides over it so that it may truly be a eucharistic

26"To be avoided is the danger of obscuring the complementary relationship between the action of clerics and that of laypersons, in such a way that the ministry of laypersons undergoes what might be called a certain "clericalization," while the sacred ministers inappropriately assume those things that are proper to the life and activity of the lay faithful" (no. 45). 197 convocation." Certain abuses in this respect are singled out: lay persons reading the Gospel27 or giving the homily,28 self-communicating (no. 94) and self-intinction (no. 104), and the ordained attending Mass "in the manner of the lay faithful" without wearing the proper vestments.

The Instruction devotes an entire chapter to those functions considered

"extraordinary." Chapter Seven recalls a number of principles drawn from the inter- dicasterial Instruction Ecclesiae de mysterio and then proceeds to deal with extraordinary

27Number 63, recalling no. 60 of the GIRM, states: "Within the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, the reading of the Gospel, which is 'the high point of the Liturgy of the Word', is reserved by the Church's tradition to an ordained minister. Thus it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass, nor in other cases in which the norms do not explicitly permit it."

28The homily is given by the priest celebrant, by a concelebrating priest, or occasionally by a deacon. Any norms which may have admitted the non-ordained to give the homily during the Eucharist must be considered abrogated by the provision of c. 767, § 1. Any such custom, according to the Instruction, must be considered as reprobated and may never be allowed to obtain the force of law (a prohibition which would apply to seminarians, students of theological disciplines and those with the function of "pastoral assistant", (nn. 64-66) Number 74 of RS permits instructions or testimonies offered by the lay faithful in a church, suggesting that it is preferable that this take place outside of Mass but for serious reasons may be given after the post-communion prayer. It is not to be a regular practice, nor confused with the homily which may not be omitted on the account of such a presentation. Under the 1917 Code it was forbidden for the laity to preach in churches (c. 1342, § 2). The 1983 Code permits lay preaching in churches and oratories when necessary and when useful in special cases (c. 766). Nevertheless, the kind of preaching mentioned in no. 74 may be more along the lines of matters of public concern, the promotion of various projects and causes and the like. The wise caution that this not be a regular occurrence is well noted. The last prayers of the Mass are called the "Concluding Rites" for a reason.

29"Holy Mass and other liturgical celebrations, which are acts of Christ and of the people of God hierarchically constituted, are ordered in such a way that the sacred ministers and the lay faithful manifestly take part in them each according to his own condition. It is preferable therefore that 'Priests who are present at a Eucharistic Celebration, unless excused for a good reason, should as a rule exercise the office proper to their Order and thus take part as concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.' It is not fitting, except in rare and exceptional cases and with reasonable cause, for them to participate at Mass, as regards to externals, in the manner of the lay faithful" (no. 128). 198 ministers of Holy Communion, preaching by the laity and particular celebrations carried out in the absence of a priest. It highlights those situations in which the laity, by temporary deputation, may fulfill ministries within the liturgy that are contingent on the absence of priests. It begins in no. 146 by recalling the theological principle that the absence of a priest means that there is no one capable of the exercise and sacramental function of Christ, head and Shepherd, since only a validly ordained priest can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist

in persona Christi. However, when needs require and if sacred ministers are lacking, the laity

can supply certain liturgical functions, as in the case of missionary areas where the Church

is small or where there is persecution or where there is a shortage of priests and deacons (no.

147).30 Nevertheless, in the post-conciliar period, a new situation has arisen in dioceses long

evangelized where lay faithful have been appointed as pastoral assistants. While

acknowledging that many of them no doubt serve the good of the Church and provide

valuable assistance to bishops, priests and deacons, the Instruction warns that care be taken

to avoid obscuring this ministry from that which belongs to clerics to ensure they do not take

upon themselves what is proper to the ministry of the ordained (no. 149).

To that end, the Instruction says that the activity of pastoral assistants should be

directed to facilitating the ministry of priests and deacons. Vocations to the ordained ministry

must be fostered, and lay members in each community must receive training for the various

liturgical functions (no. 150). The Instruction, renewing a principle of Ecclesiae de mysterio

30In this context, the Instruction makes note of the important contribution of catechists who, in the course of their work, must carry out a number of functions considered extraordinary. Commending them for their role in spreading the faith and the Church, it calls for an emphasis to be placed on their training (no. 148). 199

(art. 8, § 2), states that only in cases of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the liturgy, a recourse that does not represent the fuller participation of the laity but which, of its very nature, is supplementary and provisional.

When such recourse is necessary, it is to be accompanied by prayers of intercession that a

priest be sent for service to the community and for an increase of vocations to Holy Orders

(no. 151).

The Instruction further warns that, given their supplementary nature, such functions

should never be the opportunity "for disfiguring the very ministry of Priests," leading them

to neglect the celebration of Mass for the people for whom they are responsible, nor their

personal care of the sick nor the baptism of children nor assistance at marriages or the

celebration of Christian funerals, matters which belong primarily to priests assisted by

deacons. Nor are priests to alternate indiscriminately in scheduling with deacons and laity,

with the result of confusing what belongs to each (no. 152). Finally, the Instruction states that

it is unlawful for the laity to assume the role or vesture of a priest or deacon (no. 153).

In its treatment of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the Instruction pays

close attention to the need to use proper terminology. Restating that only a validly ordained

priest can confect the Eucharist in persona Christi, the Instruction says that the term

"minister of the Eucharist" belongs to the priest alone and, by virtue of ordination, to

bishops, priests and deacons to whom it belongs to administer Holy Communion to the laity

during Mass. When they distribute Communion, their ministerial office in the Church is fully

and accurately illustrated and the sign value of the Sacrament rendered complete (no. 154).

In addition to ordinary ministers of Holy Communion is the formally instituted acolyte who 200 is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, even outside of Mass. Further, if "reasons of real necessity" require, other lay members of Christ's faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan bishop according to the norm of law either for one specific occasion or for a specified period of time with an appropriate form of blessing which may be used (which need not necessarily take a liturgical form and must not resemble ordination in any way). A priest who presides at the Eucharist may, on a single occasion, give permission for such extraordinary ministers (no. 155).

The Instruction directs that this function is to be understood strictly, according to the name of "extraordinary minister of Holy Communion" to the exclusion of other descriptions

such as "special minister of Holy Communion" or "special ministers of the Eucharist" or

"extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist," terms which unnecessarily and improperly

broaden the meaning of their function (no. 156). They exercise this extraordinary ministry

only in the conditions identified, namely, that a priest or deacon is lacking, or a priest is

prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number

of the faithful coming to Communion is so large that Mass would be unduly prolonged, this

being understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering circumstances and

culture, is not a sufficient reason (no. 158). Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion

cannot delegate another to administer the Eucharist, as in the case of a parent or spouse or

child of a sick person who is the communicant (no. 159).

The Instruction then proceeds to the question of lay preaching. Apart from the homily

which, as seen above, the Instruction had already noted belongs to a priest or deacon during

Mass (cf. RS, no. 64), the lay faithful may be permitted to preach in a church or oratory 201 outside of Mass under certain conditions: if necessity demands it or, in particular circumstances, usefulness suggests it; on account of a scarcity of sacred ministers; and in order to meet a need. But it must not be transformed from an exceptional measure to an ordinary practice or interpreted as an authentic expression of the promotion of the laity.

Furthermore, the faculty for giving such permission belongs to the local Ordinary, and this for individual cases. The permission cannot be granted by priests or deacons (no. 161).31

The Instruction then treats "Particular Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest." It begins by recalling how, on Sunday, the Church gathers to commemorate the resurrection of the Lord and the paschal Mystery especially through the celebration of the Eucharist. The

Instruction declares it a right of the Christian people to have the Eucharist celebrated for them on Sunday, on holy days of obligation and other major feasts, and even daily if possible.

When it is difficult to have the celebration of the Eucharist on Sundays in a parish church or

in another community of Christ's faithful, the diocesan bishop together with his priests

31The restriction seems to narrow the provision of c. 766 which leaves to the Bishops' Conference the competence to provide for such. Nevertheless, according to one commentator: "Canon 766 states the laity may be allowed to preach as an exception." Furthermore, the same commentator notes that "Preaching in a place that is not 'sacred' or 'pious' is not considered to be preaching, in the strict sense of the word." (See E. TEJERO, "Book III, The Teaching Office of the Church," in Annotated Code, p. 595.) Of course, much of this was dealt with in Ecclesiae de mysterio. Art. 2, §4 states that allowing the laity to preach may be permitted on account of a shortage of sacred ministers but that, like pastoral assistants and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, this is not to be regarded as ordinary nor as an example of the authentic promotion of the laity in the life and mission of the Church. As already noted, no. 74 of the Instruction permits testimonies given by the lay faithful during the Mass which, it suggests, are better given following the post-communion prayer before the Blessing and Dismissal. It should also be noted that the "Directory for Masses for Children," no. 24 states: "With the consent of the pastor or rector of the church, one of the adults may speak to the children after the gospel, especially if the priest finds it difficult to adapt himself to the mentality of children." Certainly an apropos question is what the relationship is between this norm from the Directory and the prohibition of lay faithful giving a homily. It may appear to some that such distinctions constitute a legal fiction, prohibiting the laity from giving the homily while admitting of such interventions. 202 should consider the appropriate remedies, including calling upon the assistance of other priests or directing the faithful to a nearby church that they might participate in the celebration of the Eucharist (no. 162).32 Priests are reminded they are responsible to provide the faithful with the opportunity to satisfy the obligation of participating in Mass on Sundays.

The faithful have a right to Sunday Mass (save for cases of true impossibility). No priest may refuse either to celebrate Mass for them or have it celebrated by another priest if the people would otherwise not have the opportunity of satisfying this obligation on Sundays and days

of precept (no. 163).33

Having set forth some fundamental principles and reminders in this regard, the

Instruction, drawing out the conditions set forth in c. 1248 §2 as well as nn. 1-2 of the

Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest, declares that, if a celebration

of the Eucharist is impossible on account of the absence of a sacred minister or some other

3 This may answer the claim that a particular parish community should have the right to a Sunday Eucharist and not be obliged to travel to a nearby church for the Eucharist, thus necessitating lay-led services of Word and Communion to fulfill that right. The Instruction suggests that, if the Eucharist is being offered nearby, then a certain community of Christ's faithful, such as a parish, must be prepared to go to that community to fulfill the Sunday precept. One might wonder if there is, in this context, a balance of rights, especially regarding the responsibilities of a parish priest to his own people. To what extent must he also care for the members of a nearby parish? Chances are that in many cases, a parish priest already looks after more than one parish and must devise a schedule that will accommodate the members of both communities. Nevertheless, it would seem as if the Sunday Precept and the right of the faithful to the celebration of the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, transcends the rights and duties that arise from parish boundaries.

33The Instruction says that "priests" may not refuse either to celebrate Mass or have it celebrated for the faithful, but it does not specify whether this means each and every priest or priests responsible for clearly defined communities. Applying c. 17, and taking into account the fact that the PCLT, in a Declaration published in 2000 in accord with the CDF and the CDWDS, declaring that c. 915 is of divine law, directed that the priest responsible for a community is to give precise instructions to deacons and extrordinary ministers regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations when denying Holy Communion, it may be safely assumed that the priest referred to in no. 163 would be one responsible for a community, such as the parish priest or parochical administrator, the rector of a church or a chaplain. 203 grave cause, then it is a right of the Christian people that the diocesan bishop, as far as he is able, is to provide for a celebration on Sundays for that community under his authority and in accordance with the norms of the Church, while understanding that such celebrations are

"altogether extraordinary." Any deacon or lay person assigned a part in such celebrations by the diocesan bishop is urged, in the words of the Directory, no. 22, "to keep alive in the community a genuine 'hunger' for the Eucharist, so that no opportunity for the celebration of Mass will ever be missed, also taking advantage of the occasional presence of a priest who is not impeded by Church law from celebrating Mass" (no. 164).

The Instruction directs that any confusion between such extraordinary gatherings and the Eucharist be avoided, even to the point that diocesan bishops might decide whether or not

Holy Communion ought to be distributed at such gatherings, a determination the Instruction suggests would be more suitably made in conjunction with the conferences of bishops, and put into effect following the recognitio of the CDWDS. In the absence of priests and deacons, the various parts are to be distributed among several of the faithful instead of a single lay person directing the celebration, it being inappropriate to refer to any member of the lay faithful as "presiding" (no. 165).34

If Holy Communion is distributed during these celebrations, the diocesan bishop (to whom belongs exclusive competence in these matters) is not easily to grant permission for these on weekdays, especially where it would be possible to have Mass on a preceding or

34The Canadian bishops have indeed made such a determination and have produced a ritual for such gatherings. See THE CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Sunday Celebrations of the Word and Hours, Ottawa, CCCB, 2005. 204 following Sunday; priests are "earnestly requested" to celebrate daily Mass for the people in one of the churches entrusted to their care (no. 166).

As for ecumenical worship assemblies outside of Mass on Sundays, the Instruction, in keeping with the teaching of Ecclesia de Eucharistia as well as the norms of the

Ecumenical Directory, states that "it is unthinkable on the Lord's Day to substitute for Holy

Mass either ecumenical celebrations of the word or services of common prayer with

Christians" belonging to ecclesial communities, nor participate in their liturgical services. If a diocesan bishop out of necessity authorizes such participation for a single occasion, pastors are urged to take precautions to prevent confusion arising among Catholic faithful regarding the necessity of taking part in Mass at another hour of the day (no. 167).35

The Instruction concludes (rather curiously perhaps) its treatment of extraordinary functions and ministries carried out by the lay faithful by addressing the subject of those who left the clerical state.36 It notes that they are prohibited from exercising the power of order,

35In times of national disaster, an interfaith memorial service might be planned, and a diocesan bishop might consider a dispensation for the faithful. But, according to this article, even with such authorization, pastors should encourage people to attend Mass first. Certainly, events like September 11, 2001, natural disasters, or the loss of life brought about by accidents are occasions for such interfaith gatherings of entire communities. A dispensation might be in order or a rescheduling of the hours of Mass to facilitate the participation of the Catholic members of a community affected by such tragedies and desirous of participating in such memorials on a Sunday or holy day.

^Dispensations from sacred celibacy and from the obligations attached to sacred ordination are no longer granted by the CDWDS but by the Congregation for the Clergy. The rescript typically includes certain conditions, among them: "b) He is excluded from the exercise of the sacred ministry, with the exception of those functions mentioned in canons 976 and 986, §2, and for this reason, he cannot give a homily, nor can he assume direction of pastoral offices, nor carry out the duties of parish administrator;... f) The priest who has been dispensed from priestly celibacy and even more so, one who is married, should not reside in those places in which his previous status is known. He cannot in any place carry out the ministries of lector and acolyte or of extraordinary minister of Eucharistic Communion." But an article accompanying the rescript will add: "The Ordinary of the 205 including the celebration of the sacraments save for the exceptional circumstances permitted by the law (cf. cc. 976; 986 §2). It is not lawful for the faithful to have recourse to such priests (cf. c. 1335), and they are not to give the homily or assume any office or duty in the celebration of the liturgy so as not to cause confusion among the faithful or obscure the truth

(no. 168).37

domicile or residence of the petitioner, according to his prudent judgment and binding his conscience, having heard the interested parties and weighed the circumstances, may dispense from some or all of the clauses of this rescript contained hereunder (that having to do with teaching in certain institutes of lower learning dependent upon ecclesiastical authority) and f." (Translation of a Congregation for the Clergy rescript).

37This tendency to emphasize and demarcate the role of the ordained and the laity in the course of the celebration of the Eucharist is also reflected in the new GIRM. In their commentary on chapter three of the GIRM, Bruce T. Morrill and Susan K. Roll note the emphasis and tone that "revolves around concern for the proper ordering of liturgical ministries, which can only be realized through the hierarchical nature of the Church." They say that this has been a concern of the Church for some time. Speaking of the unity which is one of the goals of the Eucharistic celebration and which is possible only if the "holy people" celebrate it "under the Bishop," they note: "Two points are notable about this early phrase in the article, and both are indicative of the trajectory that Vatican directives for liturgy and ministry have taken during the twenty-five years since the previous editio Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani 1975. First, there is the concern to shore up the ordained priesthood by emphasizing its uniqueness, as found, for example, in Ecclesiae de mysterio. This Instruction ... asserts that the tria munera comprise a unified ministry singularly founded in Christ and uniquely imparted to. the ordained in the Church, and condemns 'an idea of the common priesthood of the faithful which mistakes its nature and specific meaning" and 'can encourage a reduction in vocations to the ministerial priesthood' (no. 2). Proper ordering of liturgical functions is essential to the celebration's exuding "the church's structured nature,' and so 'every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion' between what is proper to the ordained and the laity. Citing Ecclesiae de mysterio and some half dozen other recent papal and Vatican missives, Redemptionis Sacramentum warns against 'the danger of obscuring the complementary relationship between the action of clerics and that of lay persons,' which has often resulted in 'a certain clericalization' of lay liturgical ministries, as well as the clergy's robbing the laity of their proper parts." The authors wonder what the effect of such emphases might have on the lay faithful and their participation in the Sacred Liturgy. "This phenomenon, one can conclude from both empirical observation and the logic of the text, can ironically end up rendering the faithful passive, thus contradicting the paramount objective of participation established in SC, no. 14" (B. MORRlLLand S. ROLL, "The Duties and Ministries in the Mass," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 200-201). 206

The emphasis on distinguishing proper roles according to one's order and ministry extends also to the differences between priest and deacon. In its treatment of the role of the deacon during the Eucharistic Prayer, GIRM, no. 179 directs that he is to stand at the side of the priest slightly back from the altar, always ready to assist the priest as needed and that he

"normally remains kneeling" from the epiclesis until the showing of the chalice. According to Martin Connell and Sharon McMillan, "Such an insertion highlights the tendency in the

IGMR2002 [GIRM] not only to make clear distinctions between the ordained and lay

ministers (cf. no. 91 above) but also to distinguish clearly between the priest who 'offers[s]

the sacrifice in the person of Christ {sacrificium in persona Christi offerendi, no. 93

above)."38 Regarding no. 162 on who may distribute Communion, which is also new to the

2002 edition of the GIRM, these same commentators assert: "These pastoral directives also

have a strong theological subtext and, as noted previously (e.g. no. 160 above), clearly

demarcate boundaries between the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful

(cf. no. 91 above)."39

This movement towards a greater emphasis upon the distinction between the ordained

and the laity, especially the role of the ordained priest, is also expressed in GIRM, no. 162

which directs that other ministers of Holy Communion, especially extraordinary ministers,

are not to approach the altar until the priest has received Communion, and that they are to

receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Holy

38 M. CONNELL and S. MCMILLAN, "The Different Forms of Celebrating Mass," in GIRM Commentary, p. 269.

39Ibid., p. 259. 207

Eucharist for distribution. This ensures that the priest-celebrant communicate before them, something insisted upon elsewhere in Redemptionis Sacramentum, as we shall later note.

Certainly, one of the principal themes of the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum is that of preserving the distinction between the ministerial and the common priesthood and recalling the nature of the ordained priest as the one who presides in persona Christi over the liturgical celebration, especially the Eucharist. Whether that diminishes the active participation called for by the Second Vatican Council, as intimated by some commentators, will depend on whether the celebrant is attentive to and encouraging of all those legitimate roles and functions accorded to the lay faithful by already existing liturgical law. Such a celebrant does not seek to dominate but to exercise his ministry in such a way as to enable the faithful to enter more deeply and with greater profit and spiritual benefit into the mystery that is being celebrated at the Eucharist.

These provisions of Redemptionis Sacramentum may seem, in one sense, to represent a narrowing and even a restriction upon the exercise of that calling which all Christ's faithful receive in virtue of baptism, to offer worship to God. Yet, the same Instruction, while emphasizing the distinctions and recalling those offices and functions within the Sacred

Liturgy that belong primarily to the ordained, does offer a kind of charter of liturgical rights enjoyed by the faithful. Furthermore, together with the rights that arise from baptism and membership within the Church are obligations that fall to those responsible for the moderation and regulation of the Sacred Liturgy. As for the newly delineated rights, these include, first and foremost, the recognition that abuses in the liturgy deprive the faithful of 208 their patrimony and heritage (no. 11). For this reason, in the very introduction the Instruction

declares:

On the contrary, it is the right of all Christ's faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular, the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church's Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community's right that the celebration of the Most holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church, (no. 12)

The Instruction elaborates on the right enshrined in c. 214, which states: "Christ's faithful

have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the

lawful Pastors of the Church...." The Instruction describes fourteen rights, including the right

to have true and suitable sacred music especially on Sundays; the right to an altar, vestments

and sacred linens that are dignified, proper and clean (no. 57); the right both to visit the

Eucharist frequently for adoration as also to take part in adoration before the Blessed

Sacrament exposed at least at some time in the course of the year (no. 139). The rights of the

faithful in this regard imply that those responsible for the moderation and regulation of the

liturgy must exercise their responsibilities in such a way as to ensure that such rights are met.

This is verified in two articles.

Christ's faithful have the right that ecclesiastical authority should fully and efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy, lest it should ever seem to be "anyone's private property," whether of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated, (no. 18)

It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially 209

as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints (no. 24).40

3.4.3 The Eucharistic Prayer

Like instructions and various other documents before it, Redemptionis Sacramentum restates a number of provisions regarding the proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer. The injunction is repeated that only those Eucharistic Prayers found in the Roman Missal or legitimately approved by the Apostolic See are to be used at Mass.41 The Eucharistic Prayer is the climax of the whole celebration, and the Instruction declares that it belongs to the priest alone by virtue of his ordination. It is an abuse to recite it in such a way that parts are said by others, whether a deacon, lay minister, an individual member of the faithful or all the the faithful together (no. 52). During the proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer, there are to be no other prayers or singing; the organ and other musical instruments are to remain silent save for the acclamations duly approved (no. 53).42 This does not mean that the faithful are to be

40Cf. c. 392.

41The Instruction recalls a statement of John Paul II in his letter to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: "It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers" or, as the Instruction Inaestimabile donum, no. 5 proscribed, change the texts approved by the Church or introduce any composed by private persons (no. 51).

42Again, while RS refers to the acclamations by which the faithful participate in the Eucharistic Prayer, it has been noted that GERM, no. 78 does not include a reference to acclamations but instead declares that "The Eucharistic Prayer demands that all listen to it with reverence and silence." This would seem to suggest, so it is argued: "In so doing, the text gives the impression that the essence of active participation is reverent silence, and overlooks its own previous comments about the importance of posture and gesture during this ritual unit as well as the opening dialogue and particularly the eucharistic acclamations which are essential vocalizations by the assembly (e.g. MR2002, nn. 83,91 and 98)." See E. FOLEY, "The Structure of the Mass, Its Elements and Its Parts," 210 passive during the Eucharistic Prayer. Instead, they are to silently join themselves with the priest in faith, making the prescribed responses and acclamations including the Preface

Dialogue, the Sanctus, the Memorial Acclamation and other acclamations that have been approved by the conference of bishops and have the recognitio of the Apostolic See (no.

In its treatment of the language of the Mass, the Instruction restates the law (c. 928) that the Mass may be celebrated in Latin or in an approved vernacular language. It adds a new condition regarding the use of Latin, namely, that it does not extend to those Masses scheduled by ecclesiastical authorities in the language of the people (no. 112).44 The question of language is also addressed with respect to concelebrated Masses. When a Mass is concelebrated by several priests, a language known to all the priests and the people is to be used in the Eucharistic Prayer. The Instruction directs that, if a priest does not know the

in GIRM Commentary, p. 172. 43In explaining the apostolic character of the Church, John Paul II explained how the Eucharist manifests this truth since it is the apostles and their successors in pastoral office, that is, the college of bishops assisted by priests who preside over the Eucharist. Through valid ordination and apostolic succession, the Church continues to be taught and sanctified by the apostles' successors. This receives expression in the Eucharist where, even though the faithful join in its offering by virtue of their royal priesthood, it is the ordained priest, acting in the person of Christ, who brings about the Eucharistic sacrifice and offers it to God in the name of the people. The Pope teaches: "For this reason, the Roman Missal prescribes that only the priest should recite the Eucharistic Prayer, while the people participate in faith and in silence." (See Ecclesia de Eucharistia, no. 28.) Among the other acclamations countenanced include those that punctuate the Eucharistic Prayers for children. It is the author's experience that they often seem contrived and, if anything, contribute to making the Eucharistic Prayer and the Mass lengthier and, dare one say, "busier."

44Clearly-, a priest or even a group of priests could not insist on offering the Mass in Latin at, for example, a regularly scheduled parish Mass. The Instruction does not refer to the offering of the Mass of the 1962 Missal which is now covered by the norms of Summorum Pontificum. The Mass in question here is the Novus Ordo. 211 language of the celebration and is not capable of pronouncing the proper parts of the

Eucharistic Prayer, he should not concelebrate but may assist in choir dress (no. 113).45

Also with respect to the Eucharistic Prayer, the Instruction notes that it is an abuse to break the host in the course of the words of the consecration, a practice contrary to the tradition of the Church and, hence, is reprobated. The Instruction urges that it be corrected

with haste (no. 55).46 The names of the Pope and diocesan bishop are not to be omitted during

45This article raises difficulties, especially in situations where the faithful present at Mass come from different countries or from different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. This would be the case when large groups of pilgrims gather together. It certainly presents challenges in the face of the changing linguistic conditions of Catholic parishes in different parts of North America. English is not the language of the majority in many larger urban parishes throughout the continent. It does make sense that the priests who celebrate or concelebrate have a knowledge of the texts of the Eucharistic Prayer, especially the Institution Narrative. Could this provision perhaps exclude the concelebration of clergy at Masses celebrated in the course of international and multilingual gatherings such as World Youth Days, International Eucharistic Congresses or even at the Mass of Chrism in a bilingual or multilingual diocese?

46The fractio panis is part of the account of the Last Supper and primitively gave its name to the whole Eucharistic rite (cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 10:16). It was a very necessary and prominent feature of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the earliest stages of its development, especially when large loaves were consecrated. Various practices developed in association with this rite, including the tradition of the Pope sending a consecrated particle to the priests of the churches of Rome who then added it to the chalice at the Pax Domini, thus emphasizing that the Eucharist is preeminently the sacrament of unity (1 Cor 10:17), an awareness of such profundity that in the ancient Christian Church it was sometimes the practice that the Eucharist was even sent as a sign of communion to other bishops. The Instruction reprobates the practice of fractioning at the Institution Narrative. In his commentary on this Instruction, J. Huels notes: "ftSuses the word "reprobate" nine times, including eight times for the reprobation of specific abuses. The word has a technical sense in canon law. Canon 24, § 1 says no custom contrary to or apart from canon law can obtain the force of law (vis legis) unless it is reasonable, but a custom expressly reprobated in law (in iure) is not reasonable. Effectively, this means that none of the following practices expressly reprobated by RS may become a legitimate custom even if observed by a capable community for thirty continuous and complete years.... Express reprobation is rare, even in legislative texts. The entire Code of Canon Law, consisting of 1752 canons, reprobates only six practices. The GIRM reprobates just one. Reprobation in a document of executive power is exceedingly rare, perhaps even unique to RS. While rare and perhaps unique, it is not contrary to canon law because canon 24, §2 speaks of a custom expressly reprobated in iure, that is, in the ius, not just in legislation (lex), and instructions are part of the ius canonicum. As awesome as the word 'reprobation' may sound, its effect is quite limited. It pertains only to practices that have not attained the force of law through their legitimate observance for thirty 212 the Eucharistic Prayer, this being a most ancient tradition and a manifestation of the ecclesial communion that the local congregation shares with both the particular church of which it is a part as well as the entire Church throughout the world (no. 56).47

Of interest is the fact that the Instruction does not deal with what has become a controversy in some quarters, and that is the posture to be adopted during the Eucharistic

Prayer. However, it does address the posture to be adopted when the Instruction deals with the distribution and reception of Holy Communion.48

years; it has no effect on particular laws or legal customs, which are only removed by an express revoking act of legislative power or by a contrary custom of the community." (See J. HUELS, "Canonical Observations on Redemptionis Sacramentum," in Worship, 78 [2004], pp. 404-420, at pp. 415-417.)

47The Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered for the whole Church; intercession is made for her peace and unity, as Our Lord himself prayed: "Father,... that they should all be one, as we are one ... so they may be perfectly one" (John 17: 21-23). The same theme constantly recurs; it is also to be found in the prayer preparatory to the Kiss of Peace as well as in the first of the solemn prayers on Good Friday. Mention of the name of the Pope and bishop are both an expression of this deeper communion and of the hierarchical constitution of the Church which the liturgy is meant to manifest. As Pope John Paul noted in Ecclesia de Eucharistia: "Furthermore, given the very nature of ecclesial communion and its relation to the sacrament of the Eucharist, it must be recalled that 'the Eucharistic Sacrifice, while always offered in a particular community, is never a celebration of that community alone....' From this it follows that a truly Eucharistic community cannot be closed in upon itself, as though it were somehow self-sufficient; rather it must persevere in harmony with every other Catholic community. The ecclesial communion of the Eucharistic assembly is a communion with its own Bishop and with the Roman Pontiff...." (no. 39).

48That the Instruction enters into the heart of the Eucharist, that is, the Eucharistic Prayer, does not mean that it ignores the importance of the Liturgy of the Word as the means by which people are prepared to enter more deeply into the mystery that is being celebrated, nor does it overlook or downplay the unity of both the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Reiterating a principle that had been enunciated in other documents, the Instruction draws attention to the intimate connection between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist which together form one single act of worship, so much so that it is unlawful to separate these parts from one another and celebrate them at different times or places nor carry out other parts of the Mass at different times of the same day (no. 60). 213

3.4.4 The Communion Rite

We have noted how one of the significant aspects of the liturgical renewal and post- conciliar reforms was to facilitate frequent Communion, most especially during Mass and from hosts consecrated at that Mass, as also the extension of occasions in which Communion might be received under both kinds. Redemptionis Sacramentum gives a significant amount of attention to Holy Communion in Chapter IV. In addition to its treatment of Communion itself, the Instruction pays close attention to various aspects of the Communion Rite. In fact, one of the weaknesses in this Instruction is the way in which it presents its material. Other documents typically treat concerns according to the unfolding of the liturgical rite, beginning with preliminaries and then moving from the Liturgy of the Word to the Liturgy of the

Eucharist. Following an overview of some fundamental principles, Redemptionis

Sacramentum moves to the heart of the Eucharist in Chapter Three, "The Proper Celebration of Mass," with a treatment of the matter of the Eucharist, both the bread49 and the wine,50

49Numbers 48-50 reiterate the legislation found in c. 924 §2 and GIRM, no. 320 that the bread to be used in the celebration of the Eucharist must be "unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition." Bread made from another substance, even if grain or mixed with another substance different from wheat that it would not be commonly regarded as wheat bread, does not constitute the valid matter necessary to confect the Eucharist. It is "a grave abuse" to introduce other substances, whether fruit, sugar or honey. It recommends that the hosts to be used at Mass should be made by persons known for their integrity who are skilled in making them, using the appropriate tools (no. 48). In a letter to the president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on September 17, 2007 (Prot. N. 723/05L), the secretary of the CDWDS recalled the pertinent canon as also no. 48 of this Instruction in response to reports from some places in Canada regarding the use of recipes that include the addition of ingredients like honey and salt to the bread used for the Eucharist.

50The wine to be used for Mass must be natural, from the fruit of the grape, pure and incorrupt, not mixed with other substances and that, during the Mass, a small quantity of water is to be added. The wine must be well conserved and must not have soured. Likewise, it is forbidden to use wine of doubtful authenticity or provenance since this touches upon the necessary conditions 214 followed by the Eucharistic Prayer and then other concerns. This may simply be a way of prioritizing the concerns by touching upon the matter and form of the Eucharist first and foremost.51

Renewing the directive of GIRM, no. 321, the Instruction recommends that some portions of the Eucharistic bread coming from the fradio panis be distributed to at least some of the faithful at Holy Communion while not excluding smaller hosts, especially when the number of those receiving Holy Communion and other pastoral needs require it. The

Instruction adds: "... and indeed small hosts requiring no further fraction ought customarily to be used for the most part" (no. 49).52

The Instruction also addresses some of the preparatory acts before the distribution and reception of Holy Communion, among these, the Sign of Peace. It recalls that the Kiss of

Peace in the Roman Rite, appearing as it does shortly before Holy Communion, does not

for validity. Nor are other drinks of any kind to be admitted for any reason since they do not constitute valid matter (no. 50). 5'That RS gives prominence, first and foremost, in its treatment of the proper celebration of Mass to the matter used can be explained succinctly by referring to O'Connell's treatment of the rubrics of the extraordinary form of the Mass: "That the sacrifice of the Mass may be validly celebrated, the two things employed by our Lord at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, wheaten bread and wine of the grape, must be used; for wheaten bread is, in the common usage and the common opinion of men, 'bread', and the liquor made from the fruit of the vine is 'wine'."(See O'CONNELL, The Celebration of Mass, p. 217.) The Instruction does not enter into the complexities raised by persons suffering severe allergies to gluten, especially celiac spruce disease, and those unable to consume alcohol. As we have noted in Chapter Two, the Church made pastoral provision for them in the 1995 and 2003 letters of the CDF.

52This last phrase represents something additional to that already stated in the GIRM, no. 321 and reflects the understanding, as expressed by the Prefect, Cardinal Arinze, to Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, that an Instruction may develop the manner in which a law is to be put into effect (cf. c. 34 §1). (See "Preparation of Chalices for Holy Communion Under Both Kinds," at www.usccb.org/ liturgy/ q&a/chalice.shtml,March 6, 2008.) 215 have the meaning of either reconciliation or the remission of sins but is the expression of peace, communion and charity before receiving the Holy Eucharist. It is the penitential rite

at the beginning of Mass which, especially in its first form, has the character of reconciliation

(no. 71). The sign of peace is only to be given to those nearest one and in a sober manner.

The priest extends this sign to other ministers while remaining in the sanctuary. Nevertheless,

recalling GIRM, no. 154, he may extend the sign of peace to "some few of the faithful" while

not disturbing the celebration. Regarding the sign to be exchanged, the manner is to be

established by conferences of bishops according to the dispositions and customs of the

people, the decision subject to the recognitio of the Apostolic See.53

The Fractio Panis is a most ancient sign carried out by Christ at both the Last Supper

and in the Resurrection appearance with the two disciples at Emmaus. In apostolic times it

was the very name used to describe the Eucharistic sacrifice (cf. Acts 2:42). Renewing the

directives of GIRM, no. 83, the Instruction calls for this rite to be carried out only by the

priest celebrant, assisted if necessary by a deacon or a concelebrant during the recitation of

the Agnus Dei. It is to be carried out with great reverence and is to be brief. Two things are

described by the Instruction as abuses: the "unnecessary" prolongation of the rite and the

assistance of the lay faithful. It calls for these to be "corrected with all haste" (no. 73).54

53A USCCB adaptation of the GIRM suggests occasions when the priest might leave the sanctuary to extend the Sign of Peace to some few of the faithful, as at a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present.

54In fact, lay people who assist in the distribution of Holy Communion are not to approach the altar until the priest has first received Communion. They receive from the priest-celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful (GIRM, no. 162). There has been the practice in some parishes of extraordinary ministers coming to the altar at the Communion Rite and receiving Holy Communion in the manner of concelebrants, holding the sacred host at the invitation to Communion. Clearly, this practice is contrary to the GIRM which 216

The first eight articles of Chapter Four deal with the dispositions necessary to receive

Holy Communion. Recalling the Council of Trent's Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist, the

Instruction states that the Eucharist is offered to the faithful "as an antidote by which we are

freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sin." It notes that, while the Penitential Act

at the beginning of Mass is designed to prepare all to be ready for the celebration of the

Eucharist, the absolution concluding this rite "lacks the efficacy of the Sacrament of

Penance" and cannot be considered a substitute for the Sacrament of Penance (no. 80).

In this context, the Instruction renews the discipline that calls for a thorough

examination of conscience so that those conscious of grave sin not receive the Eucharist

without prior sacramental confession save for a grave reason and when the possibility of

recourse to the Sacrament is lacking, in which case the person is to make a perfect act of

contrition, which includes the intention to confess as soon as possible (no. 81).55 The

emphasizes the distinction of roles. As one commentator observes,"... the explicit restriction of this action to the ordained could be another indicator of IGMR2002's intention to draw clearer distinctions between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful...." (See E. FOLEY, GIRM Commentary, p. 184.)

"Recalling the words of John Paul II in his encyclical on the Eucharist, the Instruction quotes that "the Church has drawn up norms aimed at fostering the frequent and fruitful access of the faithful to the Eucharistic table and at determining the objective conditions under which Communion may not be given" (no. 82). Article 2 of Title III of Book IV of the Code, "The Participation in the Blessed Eucharist," sets forth some of those objective conditions, to which the Pope refers, under which the Eucharist may and must be given as well as those situations in which Communion is to be denied. The complicated issue surrounding c. 915 and the matter of refusing Holy Communion, for example, to Catholic political leaders who support positions contrary to the teachings of the Church, especially as it relates to abortion, is not dealt with in this Instruction. The Pope took a cautious approach in his encyclical when he wrote: "The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who 'obstinately persist in manifest grave sin' are 217

Instruction identifies as an abuse the practice whereby the faithful approach the altar as a group indiscriminately, and it directs pastors "prudently and firmly" to correct such a practice

(no. 83).56 Furthermore, it urges that care be taken whenever Mass is celebrated for large crowds, especially in larger cities and where, through ignorance, non-Catholics and even non-

Christians come forward to receive Holy Communion, without reference to the Church's

teaching in matters pertaining to its doctrine and discipline (no. 84).57

not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion"(no. 37). In a letter to Cardinal McCarrick of Washington in 2004, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, advised: "Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. When 'these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,' and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, 'the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it' (cf. PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, Declaration, June 24,2000, nn. 3-4, in Communicationes, 32 [2000], pp. 159- 162.) This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin." (See CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER, Letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick "Statement of Principles: Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," July 9, 2004, in Origins, 34 [2004-2005], pp. 133-134 at 134).

56The Instruction does not give any practical indications, neither in the text nor in the footnotes, as to what this abuse consists of in any objective way. However, situations where ushers escort communicants to Communion row by row or direct people in groups to the Communion stations might very well constitute such an abuse for it puts everyone "on the spot," so to speak, to proceed to Communion indiscriminately as part of an entire group rather than as individuals who are not barred by law from receiving. As Cardinal Ratzinger notes in his 2004 letter: "The practice of indiscriminately presenting onself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected ...." (See CARDINAL RATZINGER, Letter to Cardinal McCarrick, in Origins, p. 133.)

"Examples might include Masses on the occasion of weddings and funerals and even on the occasion of papal visits! Instructions on the discipline regarding sacramental Communion should be such as to avoid any situation where the manifestation of conscience might be indirectly revealed ("Only those in the state of grace may come to Communion" is hardly accurate since even such a discernment is not always possible except in the confessional, so great caution is required as well as precision in language). Some churches print the norms on the reception of Communion in 218

The Instruction renews the legislation of the Code of Canon Law that Catholic ministers licitly administer the Sacraments only to the Catholic faithful who, in turn, receive them licitly from Catholic ministers, except for those situations provided for in c. 844 §§2,

3 and 4, and canon 861 §2. The Instruction states that the conditions set forth in c. 844 §4, from which no dispensation can be given, are not to be separated but must be present together

(no. 85).

Even though no. 76 of the Instruction suggests the possibility of confessions being heard during Mass, the document takes up the exhortation of no. 35 of Eucharisticum mysterium in calling upon the faithful to approach the Sacrament of Penance outside of Mass at scheduled hours so that the Sacrament might be administered in a manner that is both tranquil and truly beneficial and so as not to hinder active participation in the Mass.

Likewise, those who receive Communion often or daily are to be instructed to approach the

Sacrament of Penance at appropriate times, in accord with their condition (no. 86).58

hymnals. The Administrative Committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States provided an addendum, which it ordered printed in missalettes, that succinctly restates the basic teaching while not intending to be an exhaustive treatment of the matter nor limiting the possibilities envisaged by c. 844 (in Origins, 16 [1986-1987], p. 554). Some make announcements of the same before the Mass begins and others at the invitation to Holy Communion. Accompanying an invitation with words of restriction may not be kindly received and, unless worded accurately and sensitively, may not even address adequately the entire discipline on the matter.

5S'Eucharisticum mysterium, no. 35 recommends that the faithful receive penance outside of Mass in order that the administration of the sacrament may be unhurried and genuinely useful and that the people will not be impeded from active participation in the Mass. According to J. Huels, addressing the practice of incorporating the Rite of Reconciliation in the course of Sunday Mass: "Besides the pastoral and liturgical reasons for keeping the celebrations of penance and the Eucharist distinct, there is also an important doctrinal reason, namely, the necessity of the proper disposition for penance. Essential to the sacrament and necessary for its valid reception is the disposition of contrition by the penitent. The penitent must be sorry for sin committed and intend to try not to commit the sin again. If this disposition is lacking, absolution is to be delayed or denied. Normally the confessor may presume that a person who desires the sacrament of penance has the proper 219

Regarding the admission of children to first Communion, the Instruction reiterates the discipline contained in c. 914 that first Communion be preceded by sacramental

confession and absolution. It adds that first Communion must be administered by a priest and

never outside of Mass and, apart from exceptional circumstances, should not be administered

at the Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday. It recommends, as suitable occasions,

the Sundays of Easter, the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ or any Sunday in

Ordinary Time since Sunday is the day of the Eucharist. Children who have not attained the

use of reason or, according to the judgment of the parish priest, are insufficiently prepared,

are not to be admitted to the Eucharist. Children exceptionally mature for their age, having

received sufficient instruction, are not to be denied first Communion (no. 87). Such children

would be somewhat below the normal age of seven when the law presumes the use of reason

is attained (cf. cc. 97, §2).

Recalling Vatican El's exhortation that, since the fullest form of participation in the

Mass is when the faithful receive the Eucharist from the same sacrifice and after the

Communion of the priest (SC, no. 55), the Instruction explains that it is the priest-celebrant's

responsibility to minister Communion, assisted by other priests and deacons, and that he is

not to resume the Mass until after the Communion of the faithful is finished. Only in

disposition (cf. c. 980). However, when penance, especially rite 3, is celebrated for a 'captive audience' during the Eucharist, it is impossible to verify that the faithful who have come to Mass actually have the necessary disposition to receive the sacrament of penance, precisely because they had no intention of approaching the sacrament of penance but only that of going to Sunday Mass." (See J. HUELS, "Sacramental Penance during the Eucharist," in CLSA Advisory Opinions: 1994- 2000, Washington, Catholic University of America, 2002, pp. 288-289.) The tranquil and unhurried celebration of the Sacrament is more beneficial to the spiritual life of the penitent than is a quick confession during or just before Mass. Moreover, a confessor can better carry out his ministry with greater ease without time constraints or the inevitable background noise of the Eucharistic assembly which can make it difficult for him to hear the penitent. 220 necessity are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to assist the priest-celebrant

(no. 88).59

The Instruction renews the principle enunciated by the Council (SC, no. 55), as well as Eucharisticum mysterium (no. 31) and the norms of the GIRM (nn. 85,157, 243), that the faithful be able to receive hosts consecrated in the same Mass (no. 89).60 The faithful are to receive Holy Communion kneeling or standing, according to the norms set down by the conference of bishops which have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. If they

59Again, this provision seems self-evident, but it should be recalled that, in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, the Order of Mass does not make provision for the Communion of the faithful. In the past, the distribution of Communion often took place outside of the Mass, or between Masses or before Mass for those who came from distances, had fasted from midnight, and needed to take some sustenance. The people of St. Peter Celestine Parish, Pakenham, Ontario, relate how, traveling into the village from outlying farms, they would come to the church and first receive Communion, then move outside or even to the church basement for breakfast, and then proceed back into the church for Sunday Mass. Regarding the assistance of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the footnote of the article recalls a response on the part of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code on June 1, 1988 that recourse to such ministers is only permitted when ordinary ministers are lacking or when those ordained ministers are truly impeded from distributing Holy Communion. They are not to be considered impeded simply because they are not participating in that particular Eucharistic celebration. (See PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR THE AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW, response, June 1, 1998, in AAS, 80 [1988], p. 1373; English translation in Annotated Code, p. 1627.)

60This principle was also proposed by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical letter Mediator Dei who commended the devotion of those who wished to be nourished by hosts consecrated during the Mass, manifesting how the faithful are partakers in the sacrifice offered. He quotes from the encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), Certiores effecti: "And although in addition to those to whom the celebrant gives a portion of the Victim he himself has offered in the Mass, they also participate in the same Sacrifice to whom a priest distributed the Blessed Sacrament that has been served; however, the Church has not for this reason ever forbidden nor does she now forbid, a celebrant to satisfy the piety and just request of those who when present at Mass want to become partakers of the same Sacrifice, because they likewise offer it after their own manner, nay more, she approves of it and desires that it should not be omitted and would reprehend those priests through whose fault and negligence this participation would be denied to the faithful." (See Pius XII, Mediator Dei, no. 118 .) One priest, emphasizing this principle, placed a sign in the sacristy where the ciboria and unconsecrated hosts were stored which stated rather bluntly and perhaps irreverently: "No tabernacle feeding." 221 receive standing, they are to express a gesture of reverence, again, in a manner set forth by the conference (no. 90).61

Holy Communion is not to be denied those who seek the Eucharist in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed and not prohibited by law from so receiving. Nor is it lawful to deny Holy Communion to any of the faithful on the grounds that they wish to receive kneeling or standing (no. 91).62 The faithful always have the right to receive on the tongue whereas communicants can only receive on the hand in those places where the conference of bishops, with the recognitio of the Apostolic See, permits the practice. They must consume the Sacred Host in the presence of the minister. If there is a risk of profanation,

Holy Communion is not to be given in the hand (no. 92).63 To prevent the danger of either the Sacred Host or fragments falling, the Communion plate is to be used (no. 93).64

61In the USCCB adaptations to the GIRM, no. 160, we read: "When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood."

62In the USCCB adaptations of GIRM, no. 160, it states: "The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm."

63This provision was enunciated in a response to a dubium published in Notitiae, 35 (1999), pp. 160-161. GIRM, no. 161 states that, as soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she is to consume it entirely. Experience suggests that making a determination to deny Communion in the hand is a difficult judgement call for it is often only after the fact that one realizes a communicant is not reasonably disposed to receive in the hand. It is difficult to assuage such a situation in advance, and at times great offense is taken if the minister should make this determination inadvertently.

64GIRM, no. 118 indicates that, among other items on the credence table, there should be a Communion plate for the Communion of the faithful. 222

It is not lawful for the faithful to self-communicate or hand the Holy Eucharist from

one to another, whether the sacred host or the sacred chalice. The Instruction identifies as an abuse the practice whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at their

Nuptial Mass (no. 94). The Instruction renews the discipline of c. 917 of receiving Holy

Communion a second time the same day only within the course of a Eucharistic celebration

while recognizing the provision of c. 921, §2, whereby persons in danger of death might

receive a second time but not necessarily during Mass (no. 95).65

The Instruction reprobates the practice of distributing unconsecrated hosts or edible

or inedible things at Mass or beforehand in the fashion of Holy Communion since this does

not accord with the tradition of the Roman Rite and leads to confusion among the faithful as

to the Eucharistic doctrine of the Church. In those places where the custom of blessing bread

after Mass is the practice, careful catechesis is to be given in explaining such a gesture; no

similar practices are to be introduced, and unconsecrated hosts must never be used for this

purpose (no. 96).

This third section of the chapter on Holy Communion addresses the Communion of

the priest celebrant, the Communion of priest concelebrants and the Communion of priests

present at Mass who are neither celebrating nor concelebrating. Restating norms of the

GIRM, particularly nn. 158-160 and nn. 243-246, the Instruction directs that a priest is to

communicate at the altar and at the precise moment set forth in the Missal. He and other

concelebrants must communicate before proceeding to the distribution of Holy Communion.

65A commentary notes that the use of the term iterum (again, a second time) in c. 917 indicates that this canon can only be interpreted as only one more time on the same day, and not as often as one participates in a Mass (Annotated Code, p. 710). 223

They are never to wait until the people's Communion is concluded (no. 97).66 Secondly, concelebrants are to receive Communion according to the prescribed norms from hosts consecrated at Mass and under both kinds; should another priest or deacon hand either the sacred host or chalice to these concelebrants, he does so silently, without any formula of distribution (no. 98).67

The Instruction notes that priests may always receive under both kinds even if they do not celebrate or concelebrate (no. 99).68 It restates and expands on the norms on the conditions for Communion under both kinds as set forth in the liturgical books (no. 100).69

66At the press conference in which the Instruction was presented, Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, speaking of the reciprocity that exists between the authentic ecclesiality of the Eucharist and the liturgical norms, suggested also a reciprocity between erroneous ideas on the Eucharist and disobedience to liturgical norms, giving as an example of the same the practice whereby celebrating priests and concelebrants distribute Communion to the faithful before receiving themselves on the basis that the guests have to eat before the host. Amato asks: "But is it really true that the Church is the house only of the priest and that the lay faithful are only the guests?"

67In fact, the GIRM envisages a number of possibilities for the Communion of concelebrants. After the prayer Domine Iesu Christe or Perceptio Corporis et Sanguinis is recited by the principal celebrant, he may step back to allow concelebrants to come to the altar, genuflect and reverently take the sacred host; or they may remain in their places and the paten is presented to them; or they may pass the paten one to another. Likewise, for the chalice, they may approach the altar and partake of the Blood of Christ or may partake from their places (the chalice being presented to them silently by another concelebrant or deacon) or else pass the chalice from one to another. Or they may communicate from both species at the altar, which can be done as the main celebrant and other assisting ministers of Communion proceed to distribute Communion to the faithful (GIRM, nn. 242- 249). What seems to be central to either practice is that, as concelebrants, they self-communicate.

68What of priests who assist at Mass but not in choir? Number 128 directs that it is not appropriate, save for rare and exceptional circumstances, for priests to assist at Mass in the manner of the faithful. However, there are occasions when it is not possible to concelebrate or assist in choir. Would a priest under such circumstances have the right to proceed to the altar and communicate under both kinds?

69In its thirteenth session, the Council of Trent reiterated the doctrine of concomitance in its Decree On the Most Holy Eucharist: "Therefore it is very true that as much is contained under either species as under both. For Christ whole and entire exists under the species of wine and under its 224

The Instruction notes that the circumstances under which Communion under both kinds is administered is to be determined by the diocesan bishop and that it is to be "completely excluded" if even the smallest danger of profanation exists; this latter condition is not found in the liturgical laws. So that there be co-ordination in these matters, conferences of bishops should issue (oportet edant) appropriate norms as regards the manner of such distribution and the extension of this faculty (no. 101).70 GIRM, no. 238, however, says the conference may

issue (edere possunf) such norms.

The Instruction cautions that the chalice not be administered in the following

situations: when there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the

amount of wine needed with the danger that more than a reasonable quantity of the Precious

Blood remaining needs to be consumed at the end of the Mass; when access to the chalice

would be difficult to arrange; where the amount of wine required is such that it would be

parts." And c. 3 of the Decree declares: "If anyone denies that the w hole Christ is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part of each species, when the separation has been made; let him be anathema." According to some commentators, however, the GIRM's reliance upon the teaching of Trent fails to take into consideration the historical context in which the Decree was drawn up: "There is no acknowledgment at this point that Trent dealt with this in a very particular historical situation, wishing to save itself from the political and ecclesiastical implications of meeting the demand from north European countries to give the chalice to the laity. Apart from a lapse in historical awareness, and apart from being in present circumstances a strange and stingy pastoral principle, it is also weak in the theological requirement of fidelity to ritual signs for the sake both of sacramental meaning and of bodily and spiritual participation in the sacrament." (See D. POWER and C. VINCIE, "Theological and Pastoral Reflections," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 69-70).

70The condition of excluding even the smallest danger of profanation seems next to impossible to fulfill since no diocesan bishop can completely assure this. The question is whether such provisions are to be given a wide application (as a favour for the faithful) or narrow interpretation (to minimize the odious-in this case, the danger of profanation). Certainly, well established norms and guidelines for a given region could assist in minimizing such dangers as anticipated by the Instruction. The difference between the dangers associated with profanation of the sacred host and that of the Precious Blood is that a host dropped on the altar or upon the floor can be retrieved. 225 difficult to assure its provenance and quality; when there are not enough sacred ministers or extraordinary minsters with proper formation; where a significant part of the assembly continues to choose not to receive from the chalice for different reasons, thus negating the

sign of unity (no. 102).71

As for the manner in which Communion under both kinds is to be administered, the

Instruction identifies three methods: drinking from the chalice directly, intinction, or by

means of a tube or spoon. Reception by a tube or spoon is excluded where it is not the

custom. Regarding intinction, the hosts used are to be neither too thin nor too small.

Communion is to be administered on the tongue (no. 103).72 Self-intinction is not permitted

nor, for obvious reasons, is the distribution of the intincted host upon the hand. The

Instruction repeats that the host must be made of valid matter and consecrated, it being

forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter (no. 104).

If one chalice is not sufficient for the consecration of enough wine to be received by

both priest concelebrants or Christ's faithful, the Instruction, recalling the already established

provisions of the GIRM, indicates that several chalices may be used since all priests who

celebrate (or concelebrate) Mass are bound to receive under both kinds. For the effectiveness

71It may not seem equitable and just (if we can speak in such terms when approaching the reception of the sacraments) to deny some the opportunity of receiving Communion under that fuller sign because others (even more than half of the assembly) refrain from doing so. For many centuries, the faithful refrained from receiving Holy Communion save for a couple of times a year and sometimes only in the course of fulfilling the Easter Duty.

72This repeats the provisions found in the GIRM, nn. 245, 285b and 287. Again, commentators see in drinking from the chalice profound theological and spiritual meaning, as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated, symbolizing a participation in the suffering of Christ, as a sign of the new covenant and as a foretaste of the heavenly banquet. See FOLEY, GIRM Commentary, p. 188. For a thorough treatment of the same, see also M. SCHAEFER and J. PIERCE, "Some General Norms for All Forms of Mass," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 335-350. 226 of the sign, the Instruction directs that a main chalice of larger proportions be employed

together with smaller ones (no. 105). The Instruction forbids not only the pouring of the

Precious Blood but also the use of flagons or bowls that are not in accord with established

norms (no. 106).73

Finally, the Instruction recalls the reserved penalty that is automatically imposed on

anyone who would throw away the consecrated species or who would remove or hold on to

them for a sacrilegious purpose, including further penalties for clerics, not excluding

dismissal from the clerical state (c. 1367). Covered under such an offense is any voluntary

and seriously disrespectful action towards the sacred species, including casting it into the

sacrarium or in an unworthy place or on the ground. Thus, recalling the directives of the

GIRM, nn. 163 and 284, the Instruction directs that, upon the completion of the distribution

of Holy Communion, whatever might remain of the Precious Blood must be entirely and

immediately consumed by the priest or other minister, and the remaining consecrated hosts

consumed by the priest at the altar or carried to the place of reservation (no. 107).

Among matters related to both the distribution of Holy Communion as also its

reservation are the sacred vessels used during the Mass.74 The sacred vessels are to be made

in "strict conformity" with the norms of tradition and the liturgical books, that is, they are to

be made of a noble metal. The conferences of bishops have the faculty to permit vessels made

of other solid materials with their decisions receiving the recognitio of the Apostolic See,

73We shall revisit this issue in Chapter Four.

74While sacred vessels are to be blessed by a priest according to the rites set down in the liturgical books, the Instruction recommends as "praiseworthy" the blessing by the diocesan bishop who will be able to judge whether the vessels are worthy of use (no. 118). 227 adding that these materials be truly noble in the common estimation of a given region that they truly honour the Lord and there be no risk by their use of a diminishment in the eyes of the faithful of the doctrine of the Real Presence. Reprobated, says the Instruction, is the use of common vessels and others lacking in quality, or devoid of artistic merit or which are mere containers, or which are made of glass, earthenware, clay and other materials that are easily breakable as also metals and materials that easily rust or deteriorate (no. 117).75

The Instruction repeats the norms of the GIRM on the purification of sacred vessels.

This may be performed by the priest at the altar or at the credence table, assisted by a deacon or duly instituted acolyte. If there are several to be cleansed, they may be left on either the altar or credence table, covered as appropriate, and purified immediately after Mass, once the people have been dismissed (no. 119).76

"The GIRM addresses Sacred Vessels in nn. 327-334, describing their characteristics. These include the chalice and paten (no. 327) and all vessels which hold the hosts, whether the paten, the ciborium, the pyx or monstrance (no. 329). These are to be made of a noble metal, or gilded on the interior if made of metal that rusts (no. 328). In the United States, they may be made of other solid materials such as ebony and other hard woods with the condition that they do not easily break or deteriorate (no. 329). This would indicate that breakable material such as glass or pottery is excluded (no. 329). Chalices and other vessels are to have bowls of non-absorbent materials (no. 330). The vessels are to be blessed according to the rites found in the liturgical books (no. 333). It is still a practice in some quarters to use glass and pottery vessels. The author is aware that, in the cathedral of his own diocese, glass cups and bowls are used for the Eucharist.

76The Instruction also directs pastors to ensure that the linens for the altar, especially those which will receive the sacred species, are kept clean and washed in the traditional way, it being laudable that this be done by the pouring of water from the first washing, by hand, into the sacrarium or into the ground in a suitable place with a second washing done in the usual manner (no. 120). 228

3.4.5 Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass

The sixth chapter of Redemptionis Sacramentum, "The Reservation of the Eucharist and Eucharistic Worship outside Mass," deals with the reservation of the Eucharist (nn. 129-

133), various forms of worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass (nn. 134-141) and

Eucharistic congresses and Eucharistic processions (nn. 142-145). We have noted both in the treatment of the history of the moderation of the Sacred Liturgy as well in the period following the promulgation of the new Missal that the Holy See gave particular attention to the worship of the Eucharist outside the Mass. In the period following the Council, there were

changes made to this worship in order to emphasize the intrinsic relationship between

adoration and Communion, between worship of the sacrament outside of Mass and the

Eucharistic celebration itself. At various times throughout his pontificate, John Paul II

emphasized the importance of Eucharistic worship outside of Mass and lamented its almost

complete abandonment in some places. In his encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, the

Pope speaks of both the contributions of the liturgical reform as also the shadows. Among

the former, the Pope observes:

Certainly the liturgical reform inaugurated by the Council has greatly contributed to a more active and fruitful participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar on the part of the faithful. In many places, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is also an important daily practice and becomes an inexhaustible source of holiness. The devout participation of the faithful in the Eucharistic procession on the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ is a grace from the Lord which yearly brings joy to those who take part in it.

As for the shadows, the Pope writes:

Unfortunately alongside these lights, there are also shadows. In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various 229 parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament.

Whereas the previous chapters of the Instruction relied primarily on the norms contained in the GIRM, this chapter depends upon documents governing Eucharistic worship

outside the Mass. It begins by restating the reasons for Eucharistic reservation: for

Communion to the sick and those advanced in years as well as the opportunity for adoration,

offering to the Eucharist the worship due to God alone and, therefore, both private and public

forms of adoration as established and approved (no. 129).77

As for the place of reservation, the Instruction renews already existing legislation that

the tabernacle be in a part of the church that is "noble, prominent, readily visible and adorned

in a dignified manner" and appropriate for prayer on account of the "quietness of the

location" with space before the tabernacle as well as a supply of benches or seats and

kneelers.78 Apart from c. 934, §1, the Eucharist may only be reserved "in a secure way" in

a place subject to the authority of the diocesan bishop, who is to revoke permission for

reservation where there is danger of profanation (no. 131).

As for retaining or carrying the Eucharist, the Instruction notes that no one may carry

the Blessed Sacrament to their home or any other place contrary to the norm of law, noting

that it constitutes one of the graviora delicta to remove the consecrated species for a

77These points reiterate the directives of the CDW Instruction Eucharistiae Sacramentum of June 21, 1973, in which the Ritual for the distribution of Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist outside Mass was promulgated. It should be noted that, up to the time of writing, a Canadian translation with adaptations has yet to be approved.

78See GIRM, no. 314; c. 938, §2. Some of the characteristics indicated by RS are an elaboration of already existing norms governing the place of reservation and are a way by which an Instruction can expand upon the law in force so long as it does not run contrary to that legislation. 230 sacrilegious purpose or to cast it away, such offences being reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (no. 132).79 At the same time, the Instruction directs that priests, deacons or extraordinary ministers taking Communion to the sick are, insofar as possible, to go directly from the place of reservation to the home of the ill, setting aside any profane business, thus avoiding any danger of profanation and ensuring the greatest reverence for the

Eucharist. They are to observe the rite for the administration of Communion to the sick as found in the Roman Ritual (no. 133).80

Quoting from the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia and renewing the teaching of the

Council of Trent as well as other papal teaching, the Instruction calls for the promotion of both public and private worship of the Eucharist outside Mass. Sacred pastors should give personal example through the practices of Eucharistic worship, especially exposition and prayer of adoration (no. 134). Likewise, the faithful are encouraged to make visits to the

Blessed Sacrament. Such contemplation, which is a communion of desire, unites the faithful

79With the Motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela of John Paul II (April 30, 2001, in AAS, 93 [2001], pp. 737-739), certain offences touching upon the Eucharist, Penance and morals are now reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Five of the reserved delicts in the letter have to do with the Most Holy Eucharist. These include: profanation of the Sacred Species; attempting to celebrate the Eucharist by a person not in Holy Orders; the simulation of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist; the concelebration of the Eucharist with a minister of an ecclesial community which does not have the Apostolic Succession and which does not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination; the consecration, for a sacrilegious purpose, of one of the Eucharistic species without the other in the Eucharistic celebration, or of both outside the Eucharistic celebration. 80It is common in some places that the faithful present pyxes and request sacred hosts from the communion minister. This can raise all kinds of difficulties. It would be appropriate for a diocesan bishop, in accord with c. 935, to establish clear guidelines for the bringing of Communion to the sick since in some cases the person may not be an extraordinary minister but has been given permission by a parish priest to carry the Eucharist to a sick family member. Ministers of Communion (ordinary and extraordinary) should be reminded of the necessity of going to the place of the sick directly. 231 to Christ. To facilitate such visits, the Instruction quotes c. 937 which states that, unless there

is grave reason to the contrary, churches in which the Eucharist is reserved should be open for at least some hours each day (no. 135).

Ordinaries are directed to foster Eucharistic adoration, whether brief or prolonged or

almost continuous, with the participation of the people. The Instruction recalls the

observation of the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia of two contrasting scenarios, one in

which such adoration has become a daily practice and a source of holiness while in other

places there has been "a total lack of regard" for Eucharistic adoration (no. 136). The

prescriptions of the liturgical books must be observed in carrying out exposition of the

Blessed Sacrament. The praying of the rosary before the Blessed Sacrament reserved or

exposed is not to be excluded. Readings from the scripture contribute to making the prayer

offered at exposition "a contemplation of the mystery of the life of Christ the Redeemer and

the Almighty Father's design of salvation" (no. 137). The Blessed Sacrament exposed is

never to be left unattended even for the briefest space of time. The Instruction calls for at

least some of the faithful to be present at fixed times, taking alternating turns (no. 138).

The Instruction says that the faithful have a right to visit the Blessed Sacrament

frequently for adoration, including adoration before the Eucharist exposed at some time in

the course of a year. Diocesan bishops should assign sacred ministers for this purpose (no.

139). In cities and larger towns, diocesan bishops should designate a church for perpetual

adoration, in which Mass should be celebrated frequently, even daily if possible, with

exposition being "rigorously interrupted" when Mass is celebrated. The host used for

exposition should be consecrated at the Mass that immediately precedes the time of adoration 232

(no. 140). Furthermore, the Instruction says that diocesan bishops are to acknowledge and foster, insofar as possible, the right of various groups of Christ's faithful to form guilds or associations for the purpose of adoration, including adoration that is almost continuous. If such associations acquire an international character, it belongs to the competency of the

CDWDS to erect them as also to approve their statutes (no. 141).81

The last articles in this chapter treat Eucharistic congresses and processions. It belongs to the diocesan bishop to establish the regulations concerning processions to facilitate participation in them and ensure their being carried out in a dignified way, as well as to promote adoration (no. 142). It is also for the diocesan bishop to determine if it is possible to hold such processions on public streets, especially on the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ. Such processions have as their purpose to allow the occasion for a public witness of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament and should be regarded, as noted in the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, as "a grace from the Lord which yearly fills with joy those who take part in it" (no. 143). The Instruction notes that this may not be possible in some places, and so it encourages the finding of new ways to hold Eucharistic processions such as at shrines or, with the approval of civil authorities, in public gardens (no. 144).

Renewing the exhortation of the Roman Ritual on Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass, the Instruction concludes this chapter by recommending that

Eucharistic congresses be greatly valued, carefully prepared and carried out in accord with

8'Art. 65 of Pastor bonus says the CDWDS "fosters commissions or institutes for promoting liturgical apostolate or sacred music, song or art, and it maintains relations with them. In accordance with the law, it erects associations which have an international character or approves or grants the recognitio to their statutes. If contributes to the progress of liturgical life by encouraging meetings from various regions" (Annotated Code, p. 1481). 233 the norms of the Ritual (nn. 109-112), thus affording the faithful opportunity to worship the

Eucharistic Mystery worthily and, as the prayer for the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of

Christ expresses it, they may continually experience within themselves the fruits of

Redemption" (no. 145).82

3.4.6 Responsibility for the Moderation of the Liturgy

The moderation of the Eucharistic liturgy is treated at the beginning of the Instruction

Redemptionis Sacramentum. However, throughout the document and, in particular, in the

concluding chapter, the Instruction recalls primary principles of law related to the authority

to be exercised by the diocesan bishop, and it adds some new norms in this respect. The first

chapter begins by quoting the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no. 22 as well as c. 838,

§1: "The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church,

which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the

Bishop" (no. 14). This authority derives from the office of the Roman Pontiff (no. 15).83

Among the competencies enjoyed by the Holy See regarding the regulation of the Sacred

Liturgy are the publication of liturgical books, the granting of the recognitio for their

82A pontifical committee exists for the purpose of ensuring adequate pastoral preparation of international congresses, including requesting conferences of bishops and patriarchal synods to appoint national delegates who will work for the preparation of the congresses, as well as encouraging and supporting initiatives regarding the Eucharistic Mystery in all its aspects from the celebration of the Eucharist to its worship outside Mass. See "Profile of the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses," at http://www.vatican. va/roman_ curia/pont_committees/ eucharist-congr/documents/rc-com. (June 9, 2008).

'Such authority is succinctly described in c. 331. 234 translation into the vernacular and any adaptations of them, and ensuring that liturgical regulations, especially those concerning the celebration of Mass, are observed (no. 16).

This authority is exercised by means of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the

Discipline of the Sacraments as described in art. 62ff of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus. It extends in a most special way to the celebration of Mass and also to matters pertaining to the worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass (no. 17). Continuing a theme that

runs throughout the document on the rights of the faithful viz-a-viz the proper celebration of

the liturgy, the Instruction declares they have the right that ecclesiastical authority "fully and

efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy," repeating the warning of Pope John Paul II that

the liturgy must never appear as "anyone's private property" (no. 18).84

The Instruction proceeds to treat the role of the diocesan bishop in a section that is

entitled "The Diocesan Bishop: High Priest of his Flock." Numbers 19-25 focus almost

entirely on the authority of the diocesan bishop in the regulation of the liturgy. This emphasis

on the diocesan bishop's role as the moderator, promoter and guardian of the liturgical life

of the particular church entrusted to his care was set forth in the Decree on the Pastoral Office

of Bishops, Christus Dominus, especially no. 15, as well as in the Constitution on the Sacred

Liturgy, no. 41. That authority is given canonical expression in some of the foundational

84In a marked separation, the preliminary norms of this chapter treat the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the Apostolic See. The next section treats bishops, then conferences of bishops, then priests and finally deacons. It is certainly true that the Apostolic See exercises supreme authority but, in keeping with the teaching of collegiality, the inclusion of a norm treating the Apostolic See and the Bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff would better reflect the conciliar ecclesiology, especially in view of the fact that it was the bishops of the world gathered in Council who, in union with the Pope, authorized the reforms of the liturgy that were carried out following the Second Vatican Council. 235 canons describing the competencies of the diocesan bishop. Part of c. 387 reads: "Since he is the principal dispenser of the mysteries of God, he is to strive constantly that Christ's faithful entrusted to his care may grow in grace through the celebration of the sacraments and may know and live the paschal mystery."85

To accomplish this, the bishop may set forth liturgical norms for his diocese by which

all are bound. However, he is to respect that liberty admitted in the liturgical books, thereby

adapting the liturgical celebration "in an intelligent manner" to the church building, or group

of the faithful present, or according to particular pastoral needs, but always in such a way that

the liturgy is properly tailored to human understanding (no. 21). It falls to the bishop, in

governing the particular church entrusted to his care, "to regulate, to direct, to encourage, and

sometimes also to reprove." The Instruction suggests that this be done by teaching the

meaning of the rites and liturgical texts in order to "nourish the spirit of the Liturgy" in the

priests, deacons and lay faithful, thus helping them take an active and fruitful part in the

Eucharist. The regulation of the liturgy and its moderation must have the positive goal of

contributing to the liturgical formation and education of the people of the diocese (no. 22).86

85This authority and responsibility flow from the Sacred Orders which the bishop enjoys in fullness, and it is given liturgical expression especially in the celebration of the Eucharist which "he either himself offers or causes to be offered" and which is the means by which the Church lives and grows (no. 19). Continuing to draw from the conciliar teaching (SC, no. 41), the Instruction notes that when the Bishop presides at the Eucharist, especially in his cathedral church, surrounded by the presbyterate, deacons, ministers and all the faithful, there is "the pre-eminent manifestation of the Church." It is the bishop's responsibility to order the liturgical life of his diocese according to divine and ecclesiastical precepts as well as in accordance to the particular laws of his own diocese (no. 20).

86Much of this, as the footnotes of the Instruction indicate, is a reiteration of conciliar teaching and finds expression in the norms of both the Ceremonial of Bishops and the GIRM. 236

Once again, the Instruction declares it a right of the faithful that the diocesan bishop, in keeping with the injunction of c. 392, should take care to prevent abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments, the worship of God and the cult of saints (no. 24). The Instruction describes a certain

mutuality that should characterize the relationship of the faithful to their bishop, in that they

should unite themselves to the bishop as the Church to Christ and Christ to the Father. It

reminds the various groups that make up the diocese, institutes of consecrated life and

societies of apostolic life, ecclesial movements and associations, that they are subject to the

bishop's authority in matters liturgical as called for by c. 397 and that this authority also

extends to all the churches and oratories of the diocese, including those of the aforementioned

institutes which the faithful frequent (no. 23; cf. c. 678, §1).

Pope John Paul had called for a reevaluation of the work of liturgical commissions

(Vicesimus quintus annus, no. 21). Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that such commissions

must carry out their office in accordance with the intentions and norms of the bishop, always

relying on his authority and approval. It calls upon the bishops to consider changes and

improvements to such commissions, including their composition and activity, and to ensure

that experts are selected "whose soundness in the Catholic faith and knowledge of theological

and cultural matters are evident" (no. 25).87

87It has been rightly noted that the bishop's role and responsibility as chief guardian of the diocese's liturgical life is given greater emphasis in this Instruction. In his presentation of the document, Cardinal Arinze notes: "I single out the role of the Diocesan Bishop. He is the high priest of his flock. He directs, encourages, promotes, and organizes. He looks into sacred music and art. He sets up needed commissions for liturgy, music, and sacred art. He seeks remedies for abuses, and it is to him or his assistants that recourse should first be made rather than to the Apostolic See." Keith Pecklers, commenting on nn. 22-26 of the GIRM as well as the observations of the 237

Acknowledging that it was indeed the will of the Council that such commissions be established, Redemptionis Sacramentum nevertheless emphasizes that the commissions are to consist of bishop members as distinct from expert advisors. For smaller conferences, a council of experts under the chair of a bishop might fulfill a similar role but without the title of liturgical commission (no. 26). The Instruction then renews the directive of Liturgicae instaurationes, no. 12 as well as a Decree of the CDWDS on March 21,1988 forbidding all experimentation regarding the Mass, reminding conferences that they do not have the faculty to permit such experimentation but are required to request it in writing from this

Congregation. The Instruction states that it will not be granted without serious reason. As for more substantial projects of inculturation, the Instruction notes that the special norms already set in place are to be observed (no. 27). Finally, the Instruction notes that the liturgical norms of a conference of bishops must be submitted to the CDWDS for the recognitio, without which they lack effect (no. 28).88

Prefect, remarks: "The Cardinal's comments, as Redemptionis Sacramentum itself, suggest that greater emphasis is to be placed on the role of the diocesan bishop, as evidenced in nn. 22-26 of the GIRM, perhaps in an attempt to remedy what was considered lacking in the earlier editions of the GIRM. Indeed, many who have criticized implementation of the conciliar reforms have faulted residential bishops who failed to give adequate liturgical guidance and direction to their local churches when they returned home form the Vatican Council. The experience of forty years with the conciliar liturgy and an increased concern over liturgical abuses might offer some explanation for this expanded section on the role of the bishop in the implementation of liturgical norms" (in GIRM Commentary, p. 108). Perhaps one reason was that bishops relied upon the conference of bishops to assist in the task of implementing the conciliar reforms, lacking themselves the resources necessary to do so. Indeed, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and later documents entrusted a number of responsibilities related to the reform of the liturgy to conferences of bishops in implementing the reform (cf. Inter oecumenici, nn. 20-31). Similarly, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy called for the establishment of territorial and diocesan liturgical commissions (nn. 43-46).

88In light of the significant work carried out by conferences of bishops in furthering the work of liturgical reform, not to mention the ponderous work of translation and publication of new 238

Five articles in this section of the Instruction are devoted to the role of priests in the regulation of the Sacred Liturgy. Recalling that Presbyterorum ordinis, no. 7 calls priests co­ workers with the order of bishops, and quoting from the Dogmatic Constitution on the

Church Lumen gentium, no. 28, the Instruction explains the role of priests: "In each local congregation of the faithful, in a certain way, they make present the Bishop with whom they are associated in trust and in generosity of heart; according to their rank, they take upon themselves his duties and his solicitude, and they carry these out in their daily work." Thus

are they exhorted to look upon their bishop as father and, obeying him reverently, contribute

with him in the pastoral mission of both the diocese and the entire Church (no. 29).

Drawing upon the great emphasis placed upon the ministerial priesthood by John Paul

II in Ecclesia de Eucharistia (no. 52), the Instruction recalls the responsibility of priests to

preside over the Eucharist in persona Christi, which is both a witness of and a service to that

communion that exists not only among those gathered for the celebration but for the entire

Church which is always present in every Eucharistic celebration. The Instruction expresses

liturgical books, this cursory treatment is somewhat surprising. Nevertheless, it would seem that the Holy See wished to place the primary responsibility for directing the liturgical life of the churches in the hands of those entrusted with the care of particular churches. Since the publication of the Motu proprio Apostolos suos, there has been something of a fine tuning regarding the authority of bishops' conferences. According to the Motu proprio, the authority of conferences derives from the individual bishops and, in particular, diocesan bishops, who comprise the conference. Conferences do not represent an intermediate hierarchical instance between the particular church and the universal Church. Furthermore, the Motu proprio cautions against permanent commissions of the conference assuming a role over and above the authority of individual diocesan bishops. As no. 18 states: "The essential fact must be kept in mind that the Episcopal Conferences with their commissions and offices exist to be of help to the Bishops and not to substitute for them." Clearly, it was understood that conferences of bishops are not to become a bureaucratic organ with too many faculties, like an intermediate curia between the Roman Curia and the diocesan curia. (See JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter motu proprio Apostolos suos, "On the Theological and Juridical Nature of Episcopal Conferences," May 21, 1998, in AAS, 90 [1998], pp. 641-658; English translation in Origins, 28 [1998-1999], pp. 152-158.) 239 the regret that, in the post-conciliar period, misguided creativity and adaptations by priests led to a number of abuses "which have been a source of suffering for many" (no. 30).

The Instruction reminds priests of the ceremony which takes place each year at the

Mass of Chrism when, in the renewal of priestly commitment, they promise to "celebrate devoutly and faithfully the mysteries of Christ for the praise of God and the sanctification of the Christian people." It urges them not to detract from the profound meaning of their ministry by corrupting liturgical celebrations through alteration, omission or arbitrary additions. They must avoid abuses that injure the Church but instead, under the bishop's authority, endeavour to prevent others from committing such abuses (no. 31).

As bishops moderate the liturgy for the particular churches entrusted to their care, so

too, in a parallel way, do parish priests for the community of Christ's faithful for which they

are responsible.89 The parish priest is to be assisted in this work by various members of the

faithful. However, in a manner reminiscent of the warning given bishops regarding the

assistance of liturgical commissions, he is told not to entrust to such members of the faithful

those matters proper to his office (no. 32). This section concludes by quoting a passage from

the Decree Presbyterorum ordinis which calls upon priests to cultivate their liturgical

For this reason, no. 32 of the Instruction repeats c. 528: "Let the Parish Priest strive so that the Most Holy Eucharist will be the centre of the parish congregation of the faithful; let him work to ensure that Christ's faithful are nourished through the devout celebration of the Sacraments, and in particular, that they frequently approach the Most Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance; let him strive, furthermore, to ensure that the faithful are encouraged to offer prayers in their families as well, and to participate consciously and actively in the Sacred Liturgy, which the Parish Priest under the authority of the diocesan bishop, is bound to regulate and supervise in his parish lest abuses occur." 240 knowledge and ability so that, through their ministry, the Blessed Trinity will be worshipped in a more excellent manner by the Christian communities entrusted to them (no. 33).

The last two articles of this chapter treat the role of deacons in the regulation and celebration of the liturgy.90 Noting that they have been strengthened by the gift of the Holy

Spirit through the laying on of hands, deacons are to carry out their service to the people in communion with the bishop and his presbyterate, looking upon the bishop as a father,

offering both him and all the priests their assistance in the threefold ministry of word, altar

and charity (no. 34). Drawing from the letter of Paul to Timothy (1 Tim 3:9), the rite of

ordination in the Pontifical and the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (SC, no. 10), it exhorts

the deacons to proclaim the faith by word and deed in faithfulness to the gospel and the

tradition of the Church in "wholehearted, faithful and humble service to the Sacred Liturgy

as the source and summit of ecclesial life." It concludes: "Let all Deacons, then, do their part

so that the Sacred Liturgy will be celebrated according to the norms of the duly approved

liturgical books" (no. 35).

In the Instruction, those responsible for regulating the liturgy are identified

exclusively as the ordained, whom the lay faithful assist. Certainly, a primary responsibility

for the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy belongs to those who, by their configuration to

90The Second Vatican Council called for the restoration of the permanent diaconate within the Latin Church. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, no. 29, having described the ministry declares: "Since, however, the laws and customs of the Latin Church in force today in many areas render it difficult to fulfill these functions, which are so extremely necessary for the life of the Church, it will be possible in the future to restore the diaconate as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy." (See LG, in AAS, 57 [1965], pp. 5-67, at p. 36; English translation in Flannery, pp. 350-426, at p. 387.) Pope Paul VI restored the permanent diaconate with the Motu proprio Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem, June 18, 1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 697-704; English translation in DOL, nn. 2533-2546, pp. 780-783. 241

Christ, act in his name when leading the worship of the Church. Insofar as lay persons may be delegated executive power, however, the question may be asked whether it is possible that the lay faithful can hold positions wherein they too exercise authority in regulating the liturgy within a diocese, parish, or religious community? Today there are many lay faithful occupying various offices within the local church, many in liturgical ministries, including directors of diocesan offices of worship. The Instruction seems to consider this responsibility primarily in terms of the ordained. Nevertheless, if even by delegation lay faithful can exercise executive authority in the Church, then it stands to reason they too can be included

among those responsible for the regulation of the liturgy in assisting the bishop and pastor

in applying and enforcing liturgical norms.

3.5 Identifying and Reporting Abuses

The last chapter of the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum is entitled "Remedies."

It contains not only a categorization of abuses, something not seen in previous norms, but

also, and this too represents a departure from similar documents, a process to be followed

upon the reception of complaints regarding liturgical abuses as also an invitation to all the

faithful to make known alleged abuses to various levels of ecclesiastical authority, even the

Apostolic See. Some of the matters addressed, especially those identified as graviora delicta,

are covered by the norms of Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela as well as the pertinent canons

in the Code, especially those in Book VI, "Sanctions in the Church." 242

The Instruction quotes from St. Thomas who wrote that "the vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the

Church is accustomed" (no. 169).91 It notes that one of the first remedies is a proper biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful, in order that the

Church's faith and discipline on the liturgy be accurately presented and understood. However, where abuses persist, steps are to be taken to safeguard the spiritual patrimony and rights of the Church by lawful means (no. 170).

91St. Thomas actually treats this matter in the second part of the Summa in his treatise on prudence and justice, particularly, regarding the virtue of religion, flowing as it does from the cardinal virtue of justice and which covers devotion, prayer, adoration, sacrifice, oblations and first fruits, tithing, vows and oaths, the taking of God's name, superstition and in the case of falsification of worship, superstition consisting in undue worship of the true God. He also treats under this heading idolatry, divinations, tempting God, perjury, sacrilege, etc. Thomas asks "Whether there can be anything pernicious in the worship of the true God?" Having considered different opinions, he writes of such falsehood: "Now this happens in two ways. In the first place, it happens on the part of the thing signified, through the worship signifying something discordant therefrom: and in this way, at the time of the New Law, the mysteries of Christ being already accomplished, it is pernicious to make use of the ceremonies of the Old Law whereby the mysteries of Christ were foreshadowed as things to come: just as it would be pernicious for anyone to declare that Christ has yet to suffer. In the second place, falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshiper, and especially in common worship which is offered by ministers impersonating the whole Church. For even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so too does a man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church, gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or divine authority, and according to ecclesiastical custom. Hence Ambrose says: He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than Christ delivered it." Referring to the various ways in which the Church worships, Thomas writes: "The various customs of the Church in the divine worship are in no way contrary to the truth: wherefore we must observe them, and to disregard them is unlawful." (Cf. Summa Theol., II, 2, q. 93, a. 1; English translation in St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theological First Complete American Edition in Three Volumes, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, vol. 2, New York, Benziger Brothers Inc., 1947, pp. 1593-1594.) 243 3.5.1 Graviora delicta

Something new in the Instruction is a gradation of abuses, classified in three categories: abuses that are objectively graviora delicta; those that are grave matters; and those that are to be carefully avoided and corrected. The graviora delicta against the

Eucharist are to be handled according to the norms of the Motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela as well as the accompanying letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. These include: a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for

sacrilegious ends or throwing them away; b) attempted celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice

or simulation of the same; c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice with

ministers of ecclesial communities lacking apostolic succession and who deny the

sacramental dignity of priestly ordination; d) the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one

matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the

celebration of the Eucharist (no. 172).

3.5.2 Grave Matters

Adjudging such matters in accord with the common teaching of the Church and the

norms established, grave matters include whatever puts at risk the validity and the dignity of

the Eucharist. The Instruction identifies the following as grave matters:

the use of Eucharistic bread that is not unleavened or made purely of wheat (no. 48);

the use of wine other than that which is natural and from the fruit of the grape, 244 pure and incorrupt (no. 50); the use or composition of unauthorized Eucharistic Prayers (no. 51); parts of the Eucharistic Prayer recited by a deacon, or lay minister or individual member of the faithful or even by all members of the faithful together (no. 52); omission of the name of the Pope or the diocesan bishop in the Eucharistic Prayer (no 56); integration of the Sacrament of Penance with the Mass (no. 76); insertion of the Mass into the setting of a common meal (no. 77); introduction of elements in the Eucharist contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books or taken from rites of other religions (no. 79); denying Communion to persons who wish to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing (no. 91);

giving Communion in the hand when there is a risk of profanation (no. 92);

the faithful self-communicating, taking by themselves the sacred host or chalice or handing these from one to another (no. 94);

the distribution of edible or inedible things after the manner of Communion (no. 96);

administering Communion under both kinds when even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned (no. 101);

administering the chalice when numbers are so large as to make it difficult to gauge the amount of wine needed with the danger that a more than reasonable quantity of the Precious Blood would remain to be consumed after Mass, as also, where access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange or where the amount of wine required would make it difficult to assure its provenance and quality or where there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers with proper formation or where a notable number of people prefer not to approach the chalice (no. 102);

self-intinction or receiving the intincted host in the hand (no. 104); 245

the pouring of the Precious Blood from one vessel to another and, hence, the use of flagons, bowls or other vessels not in accord with established norms (no. 106);

celebrating Mass in a temple or other sacred place of a non-Christian religion (no. 109);

admission of priests to concelebrate without a celebret when it cannot be prudently judged that they are able to concelebrate and not impeded (no. Ill);

the suspension of the celebration of Mass for the people in an arbitrary manner on the pretext of promoting a "fast from the Eucharist" (no. 115);

the celebration of Mass with common vessels or others lacking in quality or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers (no. 117);

the celebration of a Mass by a priest without sacred vestments even when only one minister is participating (no. 126);

apart from the exception of c. 934, §1, the reservation of the Eucharist in a place not subject to the authority of the diocesan bishop and where there is the danger of profanation (no. 131);

carrying the Eucharist to one's home or to another place contrary to the norm of law (no. 132);

leaving the exposed Blessed Sacrament unattended even for the briefest period of time (no. 138);

the assumption of roles or the vesture of priests or deacons (or clothing similar to that vesture) by the laity (no. 153);

the exercise of the power of Orders by a cleric who has lost the clerical state, save for that permitted by law (no. 168).

Furthermore, no. 173 of the Instruction directs that attention be given to certain specific canons of the Code, presumably insofar as they have some bearing on the celebration of the

Eucharist or the reception of Holy Communion.92

92The indicated canons deal with the penalty for the crimes of apostasy, heresy or schism (c. 1364); those who in a public form or in published writing or by other means of social communication 246 3.5.3 Other Abuses

The Instruction notes that actions contrary to the other provisions of this Instruction or contrary to the norms established by law are not to be considered insignificant but are to be included among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected (no. 174).93 The

Instruction, extensive as it is, suggests that the matters addressed do not exhaust all the violations against the Church and its discipline defined in the canons, in the liturgical laws and in the other norms of the Church. Thus, where some wrong has been committed, it is to be corrected according to the norm of law (no. 175).

3.5.4 Those Responsible for the Correction of Abuses

Renewing the teaching of the Council, a teaching given expression in c. 387, the

Instruction reiterates that the diocesan bishop is the "principal dispenser of the mysteries of

utter blasphemy or gravely harm public morals or rail at or excite hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church (c. 1369); those who incite their subjects to hatred or animosity to the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or provoke their subjects to disobedience to them (c. 1373); the profanation of a sacred object whether moveable or immoveable (c. 1376); the celebration or reception of a sacrament through simony (c. 1380); the unlawful exercise of the priestly or other sacred ministry (c. 1384); the traffic for profit of Mass offerings (c. 1385); active and passive bribery (c. 1386); the procurement of an abortion (c. 1398). 93The Instruction does not identify them in any categorical way, but they must surely include the fractioning of the sacred host during the Institution Narrative (no. 55), the use of music during the Eucharistic Prayer other than that prescribed (no. 53), altering or varying the texts of the liturgy (no. 59), separating the Liturgy of the Word from the Liturgy of the Eucharist (no. 60), the substitution of non-biblical texts at the Liturgy of the Word (no. 62), the proclamation of the Gospel by a lay person, even a religious (no. 63), the giving of a homily by a lay person or seminarian (nn. 64-66), the introduction of Creeds or Professions of Faith not in the liturgical books (no. 69), priest celebrants or concelebrants receiving Communion after having distributed it to the faithful (no. 97), the participation of priests at Mass in the manner of the laity except in rare and exceptional cases and with reasonable cause (no. 128). These, of course, could also be considered as grave matters. 247

God" and is called to "strive constantly so that Christ's faithful entrusted to his care may grow in grace through the celebration of the Sacraments;" he must see it as his responsibility, within his competence, to issue liturgical norms by which all are bound (no. 176). This responsibility extends to the unity of the universal Church, and so he must promote that discipline common to the entire Church and insist on the observance of ecclesiastical laws. Recalling the exhortation of the Code (c. 392), he is to be vigilant "lest abuses encroach upon ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the Word, the celebration of the Sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the saints" (no. 177). Local ordinaries and ordinaries of religious institutes and societies of apostolic life who receive even

"plausible notice" of a delict or abuse concerning the Eucharist are to investigate, either personally or through a worthy cleric, the facts and circumstances as well as imputability

(no. 178).

Delicts against the faith as well as graviora delicta committed in the course of the

Eucharist and other Sacraments are to be referred promptly to the Congregation for the

Doctrine of the Faith which will examine them and proceed, if necessary, to the declaration

or imposition of canonical sanctions in accordance with the norm of common or proper law

(no. 179). The Instruction directs that ordinaries should proceed in accord with the canons and

impose canonical penalties if necessary, keeping in mind the aggravating circumstances of

c. 1326. If the matter is serious, they are to inform the CDWDS (no. 180).

When receiving "plausible notice" of a delict or abuse, the CDWDS will inform the

Ordinary that he might investigate the matter. If it is serious, then he should promptly send

to the Congregation a copy of the acts of the inquiry and, where necessary, the penalty 248 imposed (no. 181). As for more difficult cases, the Ordinary, for the good of the entire

Church, should not neglect to deal with such situations, receiving first the advice of the

CDWDS. On its part, the Congregation, in virtue of the faculties received by the Roman

Pontiff and according to the nature of the case, will offer assistance to the Ordinary, granting him the necessary dispensations or giving him appropriate instructions or prescriptions which he is to follow with diligence (no. 182).

3.5.5 Reporting Abuses

The Instruction urges everyone to do all within their capacity to ensure that the

Eucharist is safeguarded from any irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly

corrected. This is a most serious responsibility which all are obliged to fulfill (no. 183). For

this reason, any Catholic, whether cleric or lay, enjoys the right to make a complaint

concerning a liturgical abuse to the diocesan bishop or even to the Apostolic See in virtue of

the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Nevertheless, the Instruction cautions that, as far as

possible, such a report or complaint should be first submitted to the diocesan bishop and done

in truth and charity (no. 184).94

94Some might wonder if such an invitation could lead to increased polarization within the Church. One commentator, H. Schmitz, notes that the Instruction says that the word "denounce" is not used but, instead, "lodge a complaint," so RS cannot be said to be encouraging the faithful to denounce priests in the way that spies and informants denounce unwitting persons to civil authorities in totalitarian regimes. Nevertheless, even though RS says that such complaints and reports of liturgical abuses "should always be done in truth and charity," Schmitz does wonder whether it remains to be seen whether this admonition will be heeded. (See H. SCHMITZ, Die Liturgie- Instruktion Redemptionis Sacramentum von 2004: kirchenrechtliche Anmerkungen zum Erlafl der {Congregation fur Gottesdientst und die Sakramentenordnung vom 25. Mdrz 2004, Adnotationes in Iiis Canonicum, no. 36, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 2005, pp. 77-78.) 249 3.6 Summary

Redemptionis Sacramentum is a extensive and detailed document. On the one hand, the

Instruction repeats and reaffirms many of the concerns that were raised again and again in the period following the promulgation of the 1969 Missal up to 2004 when the Instruction was published. However, there are also rather numerous provisions which not only go beyond already existing legislation but which, in a few instances, run contrary to the ius vigens, something which, in principle, Instructions, as acts of executive power and approved only in general form, lack the power to do. This gives rise to possible uncertainty as well as differing points of view in the application of its provisions, all of which becomes apparent when we consider how the document has been received in canonical doctrine and in the local churches.

These matters will be treated in the following chapter.

The preparation and publication of Redemptionis Sacramentum was the outcome of the mandate given by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia. It seems fitting, then, to conclude this chapter with some apt words from his encyclical, which also are used in the conclusion of the Instruction (no. 185): "Against the seeds of discord which daily experience shows to be so deeply ingrained in human nature as a result of sin, there stands the creative power of the unity of Christ's body. For it is precisely by building up the Church that the Eucharist establishes fellowship among men." This lofty goal of unity in the Church and fellowship among men, fostered through fruitful participation in the Eucharist, is not possible if the Eucharist becomes a sign of division due to the neglect of legitimate liturgical norms. As the Instruction repeats often, the faithful have a right to the liturgy of the Church, that is, the 250 liturgy as it is established in the approved liturgical books and as regulated by the law, both divine and ecclesiastical, both universal and particular. The observance of Church law is not the end in itself, as if that alone guaranteed effective celebrations (cf. SC, no. 11). Rather, the numerous laws regulating the liturgy are at the service of the liturgy, which exists to build up

God's people, the Church. In heeding the law, priests and other ministers show that they, too, are servants of the liturgy, not its masters, and thus in their very fidelity to law they are ultimately serving God's people who gather for "the breaking of the bread," the Eucharistic meal and sacrifice. CHAPTER IV

RECEPTION, CANONICAL ISSUES, REMEDIES

Introduction

In this chapter we shall endeavour to examine three questions: the reception of

Redemptionis Sacramentum; some of the serious canonical problems raised during this process of reception; and some modest remedies for the elimination, or at least the reduction,

of liturgical abuses, especially abuses in the celebration of the Eucharist. Regarding the first,

we shall examine the reception of the Instruction in the light of the canonical doctrine on

reception and then survey various reactions to Redemptionis Sacramentum, including those

of individual bishops, conferences of bishops, and canonical commentators. From this survey

we will be able, secondly, to identify both the strengths of the Instruction and certain

weaknesses that give rise to the legitimate concerns and problems noted in the process of the

document's reception.

The third part of the chapter proposes remedies to the problem of abuses against the

liturgy in accord with the general principle of the liturgical renewal that rigid uniformity is

to be avoided but the substantial unity of the Roman Rite is to be preserved. The remedies

proposed are: a renewed emphasis upon the necessity of the liturgical formation of future

priests who must be taught to respect liturgical norms and the rights of the faithful to the

Church's liturgy; the need of ongoing formation of priests, with concrete suggestions for how

this may be accomplished; and the inclusion in the introduction to the Roman Missal of a

section similar to that found in the 1962 Missale Romanum that sets out in a clear and concise 252 manner the various defects and abuses in the celebration of the Mass, including those identified in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

4.1 Reception of the Instruction

On the day Redemptionis Sacramentum was presented, the secretary of the

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Angelo Amato, explained that the

very publication of the document was something of an ecclesial event and certainly of

ecclesial significance. He exhorted bishops, clergy and lay faithful not to be satisfied with

immediate opinions but to patiently take the time to read, absorb and put into practice the

contents of the Instruction.1 It seems clear that the Instruction is directed towards the entire

Latin Church. This is something quite different from that which, strictly speaking, constitutes

an instruction since, according to canon 34, §1, instructions are directed to the executors of

the law. This unique feature offers an occasion to consider the meaning of the canonical

doctrine of reception which, in turn, is the basis from which to consider the canonical

problems raised in the process of reception

The fact that such documents are presented in a public fashion points to one of the

more pertinent canonical problems with the document, which shall be considered in due

course, namely, whether, in view of the intended audience of the Instruction and the manner

of its presentation, it exceeds the nature of such a document as described in the Church's

legislation (c. 34). In a media age such as ours, and in view of the widespread interest both

'ARCHBISHOP ANGELO AMATO, "Intervention", April 23,2004, in Notitiae, 40 (2004), pp. 122-126; English translation through the kindness of the staff of the Apostolic Nunciature in Ottawa. 253 within and outside the ecclesial community regarding documents of this kind, it might even beg the question whether it is even possible to restrict the intended audience in a matter so central to the Church's life as the proper celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. This was indicated

as much by the words of Archbishop Amato during the course of the presentation of the document in a setting and manner that seems increasingly favoured by the dicasteries of the

Holy See.

4.1.1 The Canonical Doctrine of Reception

The canonical doctrine of reception proposes that, in order for a law to be an effective

guide for the community for which it has been prepared, it must be accepted by that

community. Some canonists have identified a twofold process in the enactment of laws. The

first is that the law be instituted by legitimate authority. The second, that those for whom the

law is intended approve of it by their conformity. Such an understanding has enjoyed a long

history in the canonical tradition but for different reasons fell under a certain degree of

suspicion and has only recently been revived.

Gratian addressed the matter extensively when he described a number of the internal

qualities that render a law effective and capable of being welcomed and received by the

intended constituency. Among the characteristics identified are that laws be moral, just,

possible, in accord with nature, in keeping with the customs of the homeland, suitable to place 254 and time, necessary, useful, clear so as not to mask something unsuitable, not for private benefit but drawn up for the usefulness and benefit of those for whom it is intended.2

Some canonists see the enactment of laws as a threefold process. The law must be instituted; it must be duly promulgated; and it must be approved by the practice of its users.

Only then is a law fully constituted.3 In the course of this process, it is always to be presumed that the legislator wishes to build up the Church and that he is familiar with the local circumstances of the community for which a law is passed. The failure to be so acquainted will surely contribute to non-reception, a failure that will become obviously apparent when the law is not accepted for the particular community for which it is given.4

We might also consider the contribution to the legislative task that is rendered by the observance or nonobservance of a law. The reception and approval on the part of the people for whom the law is enacted, evidenced by their compliance, provides durability and

permanence to a law. Reception is the surest sign and the most practical evidence that, indeed,

a law is effectual.5

2J. CORIDEN, The Canonical Doctrine of Reception, Delran, NJ, The Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, 1997, pp. 3-4.

3Such was the view of Matthaeus Romanus ( c. 1325) who held that if one of these three phases is missing, the law was not established. See CORIDEN, Canonical Doctrine of Reception, p. 6- 4Ibid., p. 8. As Coriden notes: "A distant legislator cannot always know the local situation with its peculiar customs, laws and privileges, so it is difficult for that person to judge whether the law is in the public interest for that place." Cf. also p. 9.

5Ibid., p. 11. Coriden notes that this in fact represents a de facto rather than de iure confirmation of the law. 255

Non-reception of law is not the same as willful disobedience or unlawful rebellion.

The difference between prudent non-reception and mere disobedience should be clearly recognizable. Nor is the doctrine of reception in any way contrary to the hierarchical nature

of the Church. Rather, it is the expression and manifestation of that authentic participation by

the community in its own governance and the responsible exercise of their rightful role in the

governing function of the Church.6

An historical example illustrating the canonical doctrine of reception is a canon from

the Third Lateran Council (1179), which ordered a "truce of God" to be observed by warring

groups during certain days and seasons of the liturgical year. Bishops were ordered to punish

violators of the same. It was neither commonly observed nor were penalties widely inflicted.7

6Ibid., p. 18. Cf. c. 204, §1. We are speaking here of merely ecclesiastical laws. Divine positive and natural laws have a way, in and of themselves, of manifesting their authenticity in the evident results that come from either conformity to or disobedience to the same. Nevertheless, even laws which touch upon divine institutions such as the sacraments also provide, by way of analogy, a witness to the important role of worthy reception and receptivity in the action of divine grace. We see something of this in the canons governing the celebration of the sacraments, especially in the treatment of those capable of receiving or celebrating them as also their suitable dispositions for sacramental reception and celebration. Although instituted by Christ and governed in their liturgical celebration by the tradition of the Church, all the Sacraments call forth, to one extent or another, some degree of response or at least a future response (as in the case of infant baptism). Indeed, personal elements like intention, dispositions, and capacity generally affect the validity of sacramental reception. For this reason the canons on the sacraments treat not only the minister of the sacrament, the form and matter of the sacrament as set forth in their celebration, but also the recipient of the sacraments. If receptivity is an important part of the theology of grace, then how much more in the day-to-day life of the Church? The only difference is that, whereas non-receptivity may indicate a defect in the one who receives a sacrament, in the case of merely ecclesiastical laws, non-receptivity may indicate other factors such as a poorly crafted law, or one which would be disruptive of the well being of the community so much so that, given the nature of things, it could not presume to oblige the conformity of those for whom the law was intended.

7Ibid., p. 20. 256

Another example was the Papal Bull In Coena Domini listing censures reserved to the

Roman Pontiff. Reserved censures originated in the fourteenth century and were increased as time went on, right until the nineteenth century. Canonists noted that many of these lacked any effect in places like France and Germany where they had not been received.8

In more recent times, the 1917 Code of Canon Law mandated that provincial councils be held every twenty years ( c. 283) and diocesan synods convoked at least every ten years

(c. 356). Seldom were either canons observed and, hence, were not received in many parts of the Church. Even where such Synods and Councils were held, the collection of legislation that resulted from such gatherings, more often than not, were never implemented even though they remained "on the books."9

A more recent example of a kind of non-reception was the Apostolic Constitution

Veterum sapientia concerning the use of Latin for teaching in seminaries and other Church institutions.10 The Constitution was promulgated by Pope John XXIII at the tomb of St. Peter at the same time in 1962 as the Preparatory Commissions were working on draft documents for presentation at the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, including one for the renewal of the liturgy and the wider use of the vernacular.11

8Ibid., pp. 20-21. 9Ibid.,p. 21.

IOJOHN XXIII, Apostolic Constitution Veterum sapientia, February 22, 1962, in AAS, 54 (1962), p. 129.

"Ibid. Bugnini notes: "Not a few people interpreted this document as an admonition to those liturgists who favoured the introduction of the vernacular into worship. It certainly influenced the atmosphere in which preparation for the Council was carried out. The via purgativa was beginning for the Constitution on the Liturgy." See BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, pp. 25-26. 257

4.1.2 The Reception of the Conciliar Liturgical Renewal

In the period following the Council, the Roman Pontiffs and some dicasteries of the

Holy See commented upon the various reactions to the liturgical renewal. They accompanied many of their documents with exhortations that all receive these initiatives in a right spirit,

thus suggesting that the canonical doctrine of reception was more than a speculative or

theoretical matter but that it played a very significant role in the Church in the period

following the Council. That a schism erupted within the Church and that new provisions had

to facilitate the celebration of pre-conciliar liturgical rites would seem more than a tacit

recognition on the part of the highest authorities that some within the ecclesial community had

not received the liturgical reforms for various reasons. It also was an acknowledgement that,

unless the faithful receive these reforms, they would prove ineffectual. In this regard, the

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy notes that, in order for the faithful to take their part in the

liturgy through a full and active participation, and for the goals set forth in the Constitution

to become a reality, pastors should provide the necessary teaching: "Yet it would be futile to

entertain any hope of realizing this unless pastors of souls, in the first place, themselves

become fully imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy and attain competence in it."12

In March of 1965, shortly before the concluding session of the Council, Paul VI spoke

on the reactions to the reform of the liturgy and identified two categories of persons. The first

category consisted of those undergoing confusion and experiencing uneasiness, and the pope

castigated the motives and dispositions of those troubled by the liturgical reforms. The other

'SC, no. 14, in Flannery, p. 8. 258 category, predictably enough, consisted of those who were enthusiastic with the reforms in that now they could pray and worship more actively, effectively and with greater meaning.13

The Pope took up the same theme in an address when the new Missal was promulgated, again confronting resistance to the liturgical reform. The Pope had harsh words for such persons.

A second category, whose ranks have swelled with troubled people after the conciliar reform of the liturgy, includes the suspicious, the criticisers, the malcontents. Disturbed in their devotional practices, these spirits grudgingly resign themselves to the new ways but make no attempt to understand the reason for them. They find the new expressions of divine worship unpleasing. They take refuge in their moaning, which takes away their ancient flavour from texts of the past and blocks any taste for what the Church, in this second spring of the liturgy, offers to spirits that are open to the meaning and language of the new rites sanctioned by the wisdom and authority of the post-conciliar reform. A not very difficult effort at acceptance and understanding would bring the experience of dignity, simplicity, and new-found antiquity in the new liturgies and would also bring to the sanctuary of each person's self the consolation and the life-giving force of community celebrations.14

If in one address Paul VI critiqued those resisting the reforms, in an address only a

couple of weeks later he warned of the danger of arbitrariness and unapproved changes which

would, the pope noted, have the effect of threatening the spiritual unity of ecclesial society,

the sublimity of prayer and the dignity of ritual. This would represent not a lawful pluralism

but a distortion of a kind not merely ritual but substantial (the Pope gave as an example giving

Holy Communion to Christians whose ministers lack a valid priesthood). The Pope suggested

13PAUL VI, Address, "Reactions to the Reform of the Liturgy," March 17, 1965, in L'Osservatore Romano, March 8-9, 1965; English translation in DOL, nn. 400-402, pp. 114-115.

14PAUL VI, Address, August 20,1969; mNotitiae, 5 (1969), pp. 339-342; English translation in DOL, nn. 492-493, p. 150. The dismissive tone of such comments are surprising and suggest a certain amount of bitterness in the fact that some would dare criticize either the foundations of the reform or the manner in which these were being carried out. The lack of a conciliatory tone and a manifest annoyance which characterized these remarks by the Pope seem to be the reaction of those who, caught up in enthusiasm for their projects, ignore, override or dismiss the voice of those with a differing point of view. 259 that such tendencies represent an obstacle to the disciplined reform which the Church had sanctioned, introducing a discordant note in both the outward and inner harmony of the

Church's "concert of prayer."15

The Pope noted that the tendency to shake off church authority and communion would gradually lead people right out of the Church. Certainly, in this context, the Pope effectively spelt out some of the consequences of such arbitrariness: injury to the heart of Catholic worship, namely, communion with both God and others, the creation of sectarianism, and a lack of charity, all under misguided notions of freedom, spontaneity and creativity.16 While

manifesting a certain impatience with "traditionalists," the Pope was equally and gravely

concerned with those who were willing to move beyond the norms and to create their own

liturgical praxis. He rightly pointed to the harm this would do to the ecclesial community

(something which both the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia and the Instruction

Redemptionis Sacramentum would later highlight).

In the following year, as we saw in the first chapter, the Sacred Congregation for

Divine Worship issued the Third Instruction on the proper implementation of the Constitution

on the Liturgy, Liturgicae instaurationes, which also took up the theme of the varied

responses to the liturgical reform. It identified three kinds of persons: those of the great

15PAUL VI, Address, September 3, 1969, in Notitiae, 5 (1969), pp. 342-345; English translation in DOL, nn. 494-495, pp. 151-152.

16Ibid. It should be noted that the discourses of Paul VI usually tended to manifest the most profound insights as to the ecclesial implications of the Church's liturgy and were characterized by that balance and caution with which his writings were noted. It is unfortunate that the normally cautious and balanced approach gave way to a certain bitterness in the face of those who had serious difficulties with at least some aspects of the reform. A more tolerant approach to traditional sensitivities on the part of those implementing the liturgical renewal might have forestalled the eventual schism that would erupt under the pontificate of John Paul II. 260 majority who welcomed the reforms; those resisting the reforms; and those impatient at the progress who wished to go beyond the norms and limits established. The Instruction notes:

Measured transition to new and fresh forms of worship, conducted with both the overall work of renewal and the wide range of local conditions as its criteria, has been welcomed by the majority of clergy and faithful. Still, there have been here and there both resistance and impatience. In the cause of holding onto the old tradition, some have received the changes grudgingly. Alleging pastoral needs, others became convinced that they could not wait for promulgation of the definitive reforms. In consequence, they have resorted to personal innovations, to hasty, often ill-advised measures, to new creations and additions or to the simplification of rites. All this has frequently conflicted with the most basic liturgical norms and upset the consciences of the faithful. The innovators have thus obstructed the cause of genuine liturgical renewal or made it more difficult.17

In his letter to bishops on the Mystery and Worship of the Holy Eucharist In Coena

Domini, Pope John Paul II commended the liturgical renewal brought about by the Second

Vatican Council and suggested that, in fact, far from detracting from traditional Catholic

teaching on the Eucharist, the liturgical renewal had the effect of highlighting it, and the new

Rite of Mass had given greater visibility and prominence to the Eucharistic Sacrifice. This

doctrine was emphasized by the fact that the Eucharistic Prayer was proclaimed aloud,

particularly the words of the consecration, and the faithful had the opportunity to respond to

the mystery by means of an acclamation of faith.18 Commenting further, the pope suggested

that the changes in the liturgy would require a "new spiritual awareness and maturity," both

on the part of the celebrant-especially in that he now celebrates facing the people-and also

by the faithful. Addressing the importance of priests receiving the reforms in the right spirit,

17SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Instruction Liturgicae instaumtiones, September 5,1970, in AAS, 62 (1970), pp. 692-704 at p. 693; English translation in DOL, nn. 509- 531, pp. 159-167, at p. 159.

18JOHN PAUL II, Letter to Bishops Dominicae Cenae, February 24,1980, in AAS, 72 (1980), pp. 113-148, at pp. 133-134; English translation in Origins, 9 (1979-1980), pp. 653-666, at p. 660. 261 he noted that Eucharistic worship matures and grows when, by the manner in which the words of the Eucharistic Prayer are spoken, especially the words of consecration, the faithful become aware of the greatness of the mystery being accomplished and show it by their attitude and devotion.19

Having treated the reception of the renewal by priests and the absolute necessity of

understanding their role in the reformed liturgy, the Pope proceeded to address the various

reactions of the faithful. He noted that there were people who, having been educated on the

basis of the old liturgy, lament the loss of Latin which was an expression of the unity of the

Church and which, through its dignified character, elicited a profound sense of Eucharistic

Mystery. While calling for the accommodation of these desires and recalling the Latin

Church's obligation of maintaining its Latin heritage, the Pope noted that a very obvious sign

of the reception of the reforms on the part of the lay faithful was the number of people

participating in the liturgy (readers, cantors, choirs of men and women). But the Pope also

suggested that such participation calls forth a number of demands, including a greater sense

of responsibility to the Word of God.20

On another matter, the Pope spoke of various reactions to the invitation to receive the

Eucharist, citing two kinds of response that indicated serious problems. In particular, he

suggested that those who continually absent themselves from regular reception manifest a lack

of "interior willingness," and this itself stems from a "lack of adequate sensitivity towards the

'Ibid., AAS, p. 134; Origins, p. 660.

'Ibid., AAS, pp. 135-136; Origins, p. 661. 262 great sacrament of love and a lack of understanding of its nature."21 The Pope concluded his first major document on the Eucharist by asking for forgiveness for any "partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the Second Vatican Council" which "may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament" and which also contributed to "weakening and disorienting the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people."22 The Pope rightly noted the profound

implications that abuses in the celebration of the Eucharist have for the Church, especially

when the liturgy becomes a source of division threatening the unity of the Church. After all,

the Eucharist was entrusted to the Church as the source of her spiritual unity.23

On the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the promulgation of the Constitution

on the Sacred Liturgy, John Paul II published his Apostolic Letter Vicesimus quintus annus

on December 4,1988.24 In the fourth section of the letter, entitled "The Practical Application

of the Reform," the Pope described some of the overall factors hindering the renewal of the

liturgical life of the Church. These include the contemporary tendency to identify religious

practice as a private affair, the rejection of institutional forms of religious expression, a

decrease in the visibility of the Church within the larger society and a calling into question

of the whole notion of personal faith.25 More particularly, the Pope gave other reasons for the

21Ibid., AAS, pp. 138-139; Origins, p. 662.

22Ibid., AAS, pp. 145-146; Origins, p. 664.

23Ibid., AAS, p. 147; Origins, p. 665.

24JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Vicesimus quintus annus, December 4, 1988, in AAS, 81 (1989), pp. 897-918; English translation in Origins, 19 (1989-1990), pp. 17-25.

25Ibid., AAS, p. 909; Origins, pp. 21-22. 263 various responses to the liturgical reform which had to do with the dispositions of the faithful themselves in receiving or resisting the same.

It can also be supposed that the transition from simply being present, very often in a rather passive and silent way, to a fuller and more active participation has been for some people too demanding. Different and even contradictory reactions to the reform have resulted form this. Some have received the new books with a certain indifference, or without trying to understand the reasons for the changes; others, unfortunately, have turned back in a one-sided and exclusive way to the previous liturgical forms which some of them consider to be the sole guarantee of certainty in faith. Others have promoted outlandish innovations, departing from the norms issued by the authority of the Apostolic See or the bishops, thus disrupting the unity of the Church and the piety of the faithful and even on occasion contradicting matters of faith.26

Thus, there existed two problematic kinds of reception within the Church itself: resistance to anything new, on the one hand, and impatience and haste on the other. According to the pope, the remedy to such problematic reception includes ongoing biblical and liturgical formation, the allowance of appropriate adaptation, the resolution of new problems (the exercise of the diaconate, various lay ministries and functions, and the proper composition of liturgical texts appropriate to a particular region or country) and the integration of popular

Christian devotion and piety with the liturgy.27

26Ibid., AAS, p. 909; Origins, p. 22. Further in the letter, in no. 13, the pope recalled concerns raised throughout his papacy that, in addition to positive results, there had been erroneous applications of the renewal consisting of "illicit omissions or additions, rites invented outside the framework of established norms; postures or songs which are not conducive to faith or to a sense of the sacred; abuses in general absolution; confusion between the ministerial priesthood linked with ordination and the common priesthood of the faithful which has its foundation in baptism." The pope continued that it was intolerable that "certain priests should take upon themselves the right to compose eucharistic prayers or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture." He called upon the bishops "to root out such abuses, because the regulation of the liturgy depends on the bishop within the limits of the law" since, quoting SC, no. 41, "the life in Christ of his faithful people in some sense is derived from and depends upon him."

'Ibid., AAS, pp. 911-914; Origins, p. 23. 264

In his Apostolic Letter Tertio millenio adveniente to prepare for the Great Jubilee,

John Paul raised the matter of reception when he addressed the need for an examination and a purification of conscience on the part of the entire Church as it prepared to enter into the new millennium.28 While primarily a question of the sins and failings of the Church in her two thousand year history, the Pope also wondered whether or not the Church had properly received conciliar teaching. He asked a number of questions in this regard.

An examination of conscience must also consider the reception given to the Council, this great gift of the Spirit to the Church at the end of the second millennium. To what extent has the Word of God become more fully the soul of theology and the inspiration of the whole of Christian living, as Dei Verbum sought? Is the liturgy lived as the "origin and summit" of ecclesial life, in accordance with the teaching of Sacrosanctum concilium! In the universal Church, and in particular Churches, is the ecclesiology of communion described in Lumen gentium being strengthened? Does it leave room for charisms, ministries, and different formsof participation by the People of God, without adopting notions borrowed from democracy and sociology which do not reflect the Catholic vision of the Church and the authentic spirit of Vatican II? Another serious question is raised by the nature of relations between the Church and the world. The Council guidelines-set out in Gaudium et spes and other documents-of open, respectful and cordial dialogue, yet accompanied by careful discernment and courageous witness to the truth, remain valid and call us to a greater commitment.

The Pope would return to this theme towards the end of his papacy with another

Apostolic Letter, Spiritus et sponsa, to mark the fortieth anniversary of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. He called for a deepening of the liturgical renewal.30

Forty years later, it is appropriate to review the ground covered. I have already suggested on former occasions a sort of examination of conscience concerning the reception given to the Second Vatican Council. Such an examination must also

28JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente, November 10, 1994, in AAS, 97 (1995), pp. 5-41; English translation in Origins, 24 (1994-1995), pp. 401-416.

29Ibid., AAS, pp. 28-29; Origins, p. 411.

30JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Spiritus et sponsa, December 4, 2003, in AAS, 96 (2004), pp. 419-427; English translation in Origins, 33 (2003-2004), p. 541 and pp. 543-546. 265 concern the liturgical and sacramental life. "Is the Liturgy lived as the 'origin and summit' of ecclesial life, in accordance with the teaching of Sacrosanctum concilium1. Has the rediscovery of the value of the Word of God brought about by liturgical reform met with a positive confirmation in our celebrations? To what extent does the Liturgy affect the practice of the faithful, and does it mark the rhythm of the individual communities? Is it seen as a path of holiness, an inner force of apostolic dynamism and of the Church's missionary outreach?31

Clearly, then, since the time of the Council, at the highest level of the Church, there were repeated calls for an authentic implementation of the renewal as the surest way to facilitate the reception of the conciliar teaching on the Sacred Liturgy. In this we find a tacit recognition and acknowledgement of the doctrine of reception without which the liturgical renewal called for by the Council could never take effect, with the result that much of the patrimony of that renewal would remain untapped and unrealized.

Of course it should be noted that, in all of this, never does the Apostolic See consider

that the problems related to such reception represent in any way a defect in the reforms

themselves. It is more often identified as the result of impatience on the part of some who

wish to go further than the limits set forth, or the resistance and opposition to the reforms on

the part of others. Nevertheless, it is a recognition of the dynamic of reception.

If the authentic liturgical renewal and its appropriate reception by the faithful, both

clergy and laity, have been concerns of the Apostolic See and especially the Supreme Pontiffs,

they have equally been the object of pastoral solicitude on the part of particular churches and

conferences of bishops. We have already noted in chapter one that, at the earliest stage in the

liturgical reform, the bishops of Canada addressed a number of matters and took advantage

31Ibid., AAS, p. 422; Origins, pp. 543-544. In no. 7 of the letter, the Pope renewed the call for an "appropriate formation of the pastors and of all the faithful" and, in no. 8, a "pastoral care of the Liturgy that is totally faithful to the new ordines." 266 of those competencies entrusted to them to further that reform. In like fashion, they too recognized that the path to success would require a receptivity born of a thorough formation of clergy and lay faithful alike. We see this much in evidence in the pastoral letter written by the bishops of Canada on December 21,1964, just one year following the promulgation of the

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Filled with great hope for the future, the bishops noted:

"This hope can be realized only if our priests and faithful accept our decisions in a spirit of faith and begin immediately to put them to work with understanding and diligence."32

What this suggests is that, from a very early stage in the conciliar reform of the liturgy, ecclesiastical authorities recognized that it would be almost impossible to carry forward the hoped-for renewal without the clergy and faithful appropriating its content. For this to happen

effectively would require more than edicts and decrees but a proper and true spirit of

32CANADIAN CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, Liturgical Renewal: Documents Issued by the Holy See and the Canadian Episcopate, 1963-1964, Hull, Gauvin Press Limited, p. 106. The bishops recalled the exhortation of no. 14 of the Constitution: "Pastors themselves must become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy and undertake to give instruction about it." With this in mind the bishops declared: "The success or failure of the renewal rests largely with the priests, both secular and religious, who work in the pastoral ministry. They must begin by greater comprehension in their own lives concerning the sacred.functions that they fulfill, in order that they may live true liturgical lives and communicate their faith and their love of the liturgy to the faithful whose souls are confided to their care." The bishops then turned their attention to the liturgical formation of the laity: "Nothing will be achieved in the liturgical renewal without the education of the faithful in the rites and mysteries of the faith. It would be a serious dereliction of duty for any priest to neglect to instruct his people in these changes and simply to introduce the changes without warning.... Without this serious preparation, both in theory and in practice, the confusion which will arise from the changes will tend rather to harm our people than to benefit them. The bishops concluded their pastoral letter on the threshold of one of the most significant moments within the Catholic Church in Canada by noting: "There is no doubt that the implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is a difficult and delicate and urgently needed task. It cannot be successful without the co-operation of all, a true understanding in faith of the Church's wishes and an awareness of present pastoral needs. Although the guidance of this renewal is the responsibility of the Holy See and of the Bishops, it is quite clear that the success of the whole movement will depend on the priests and on the faithful. This is a living movement which must pervade the entire Church." 267 receptivity on the part of the faithful (clergy and lay) together with the necessary preparation, appropriate formation and sensitive and careful implementation. Hence, we see the acknowledgement of the necessity of mutuality in carrying out the liturgical reforms of the

Second Vatican Council as well as the necessity of their reception.

4.1.3 The Reception of RedemptionisSacramentum

Redemptionis Sacramentum met with different responses. We shall first consider how various conferences of bishops received the document. Next, we shall consider the reception of the Instruction on the part of some individual bishops and by learned authors and commentators. Moreover, due to the fact that the Instruction is' addressed to all the faithful, it will be appropriate to consider additional responses to the Instruction from others besides ecclesiastical authorities and canonists.

Most of the official responses of the various episcopal conferences are somewhat a pro forma statement welcoming the Instruction. The statements of English-speaking episcopal conferences were accompanied not only by a translation of the Instruction but also by a summary or commentary to serve as a means of interpretation and understanding.

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, through its Department of

Christian Life and Worship, issued a statement on April 28, 2004.

In Ecclesia de Eucharistia Pope John Paul speaks of how the Eucharist builds the Church. This new document, Redemptionis Sacramentum, written at the Pope's request, promotes this great mystery of faith.

By inviting clergy and laity on how to truly promote a deeper understanding and reverence and care for the Eucharist, the document will assist the whole Church to a deeper participation in this mystery. 268 Redemptionis Sacramentum responds to a variety of situations in the Universal Church. Hopefully it will stimulate positive reflection on the place that he Eucharist holds in the life of the individual Christian and the community gathered to celebrate. It challenges us to continue our commitment to the faithful renewal of the liturgy so that "the saving presence of Christ in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood may shine brightly upon all people."33

A Summary Guide accompanied the official statement and was itself described as an

"unofficial" summary that "in no way replaces the Instruction which should always be referred to." In its treatment of the Instruction, this summary guide explains that the text of the

document is reordered to "offer a way of easily identifying issues." What is noteworthy about

this reordering is that, having described the purpose of the document, it proceeds immediately

to the matter of reporting complaints regarding abuses in liturgical matters. It recalls the right

of the faithful to lodge a complaint (RS, no. 194), with a brief description of the role of the

CDWDS and the diocesan bishop in dealing with abuses and reports of abuses. It proceeds

to describe the threefold categorization of abuses as set forth in the Instruction: graviora

delicta, grave matters and other abuses. It then considers the Instruction's treatment of roles

and responsibilities in the safeguarding of the liturgy and its celebration, the ministry of the

lay faithful, the Eucharistic celebration and its symbols, the celebration of Mass, the

reservation of the Eucharist, including Eucharistic processions and, lastly, particular

celebrations carried out in the absence of a priest.34

33C ATHOLIC BISHOPS' CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES, DEPARTMENT FOR CHRISTIAN LIFE & WORSHIP, Statement on Redemptionis Sacramentum, April 30, 2004.

34C ATHOLIC BISHOPS' CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES , DEPARTMENT FOR CHRISTIAN LIFE AND WORSHIP, Summary Guide on Redemptionis Sacramentum, April 30, 2004, http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Documents/RSsummaiT.pdf, (February 19, 2008). 269

In an interesting ordering, the Summary Guide includes under a heading entitled

"Roles and Responsibilities" not only the ordained but also the lay faithful. Whereas the

Instruction considers the regulation of the liturgy primarily the responsibility of those in Holy

Orders, this Summary Guide includes the laity in the work of safeguarding the dignity of the

Eucharistic celebration. In this context, the Summary highlights some characteristics of such a responsibility and the means by which such participation in the liturgy is facilitated.

Participation in the liturgy is more than mere presence, still less a passive one, but an exercise of true faith and baptismal dignity. [37]

This participation is fostered through:

acclamations of the people, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and canticles, as well as actions or movements and gestures and silence at the proper times.

ample flexibility is given for appropriate creativity to allow each celebration to be adapted to the needs of the participants, to their comprehension, their interior preparation and their gifts, according to the established liturgical norms.

the songs, melodies, choice of prayers and readings, homily, preparation of the prayer of the faithful, occasional explanatory remarks, and the decoration of the Church building according to the various seasons, provide ample possibility for introducing variety, in keeping with pastoral requirements, to the celebration that will foster the recollection of the participants.

The power of the liturgical celebrations does not however consist in altering the rites, but in probing more deeply the word of God and the mystery being celebrated. [39]35

This treatment of the role and responsibility of the lay faithful under the same heading accords

the laity a significant responsibility for ensuring the proper celebration of the liturgy as well

as highlighting their participation in such celebrations. This summary guide not only considers

such roles in light of their legislative and preceptive aspects but situates it in the first and

primary task, the work of worship itself. It treats the full spectre of involvement, giving the

'Ibid., p. 5. 270 lay faithful a prominent place as well as offering a description of the nature of their participation and the different means by which that participation is to be facilitated.

One might discern in this treatment an effort to provide a more inclusive treatment and to broaden the scope of the Instruction, especially the first chapter which deals with those responsible for the regulation of the liturgy. Nevertheless, in its efforts to render the

Instruction more inclusive, it may have obscured one of its primary goals, that of affirming the absolute necessity of the clerical orders, especially the ministerial priesthood, in celebrating and effecting the Eucharist. It is not the entire Christian community that makes the Eucharist but the bishops who are the successors of the apostles together with their co­ workers, the presbyters. Nevertheless, we might see in the summary an effort to present the content of Redemptionis Sacramentum in a way that might be regarded as more pastoral and inclusive and thus more palatable.

In September 2004, the Liturgy Office of the Bishops of England and Wales issued a newsletter describing the different kinds of responses to the Instruction from various quarters, including the Catholic Press. This newsletter gives a brief description of the journey of the document from its preparation to its publication (as explained by Cardinal Arinze on the day it was made public) and notes that many of the different reactions, especially those in anticipation of its publication, were, in fact, premature.

The Instruction's publication was widely reported in the British media. There seemed a certain disappointment in some quarters that the previously reported "banning" of girl altar servers and liturgical dance was missing and that the Instruction was not as controversial as anticipated. Even so the reporting focussed very much on it as "a document about abuses". In fact, the greater part of the document is not about abuses but is devoted to promoting the best practice, reminding and explaining the norms 271 for authentic celebration already established in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.36

The same newsletter notes that the Instruction seeks to demonstrate the results that come from a failure to celebrate the liturgy according to the mind of the Church as well as identify specific abuses. It regards the provisions of the Instruction as a positive contribution to the

Church: "The Instruction will assist dioceses and parishes in undertaking the sort of examination of conscience in regard to the implementation of Sacrosanctum concilium and the renewal of the liturgy that it mandated, which the Holy Father proposed in his Apostolic

Letter of 2003, Spiritus et Sponsa."31

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops presented the Instruction both on its website and also by means of a publication which contained the remarks of Cardinal Arinze introducing the Instruction, the text itself, observations on it, and a recap of the abuses identified by the Instruction. The observations were prepared by the French Sector National

Liturgy Office in consultation with the English Sector National Liturgy Office. In its preliminary remarks, the document says that the Instruction must be read and applied in continuity with the encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and that its implementation is entrusted to the bishop of the diocese in keeping with the teaching of the Council and c. 835

"CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES, LITURGY OFFICE, Liturgy Newsletter, September, 2004, http://www.liturgvoffice.org.uk/Newsletter/Volume4/Sept04.html (February 19, 2008).

"Ibid. 272 that the bishop is the moderator, promoter and custodian of the whole liturgical life of his diocese.38

Among other observations, the Liturgy Office offers some remarks on the canonical nature of the document which, since it is in the form of an instruction, constitutes an administrative rather than a legislative act. Furthermore, it is described as a "distinctly disciplinary" text in virtue of the fact that "the term 'norm(s)' appears sixty-seven times whereas the term 'formation' appears only three times."39 The Observations also address the objective of the Instruction, the intended audience, some helpful principles (drawing out some of the preceptive norms set forth in the Instruction) and the abuses indicated.40

The Liturgy Office Commentary highlights two important rights of the faithful: to have a liturgical celebration that is a faithful expression of the Church's life in accordance with her tradition and discipline, and to bring a complaint regarding liturgical abuses to the

38CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Instruction Redemptions Sacramentum, Ottawa, CCCB Publications, 2004, p. 71. While this observation is true, one of the remarkable features of RS is its affirmation of the right of any of the faithful to lodge a complaint concerning abuses in the celebration of the liturgy, including recourse to the Apostolic See. So while, on the one hand, RS identifies as the regulators of the liturgy those in Holy Orders, on the other hand, it entrusts to the laity a role of vigilance.

39Ibid., p. 72. Certainly, the Instruction was intended, primarily, to be a disciplinary document. Nevertheless, the underlying principles and norms, as noted at its presentation, themselves breathe something of the spirit of the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia. Furthermore, the Instruction, as a companion of the encyclical, represents an effort to correct certain views as well as the practices that emerge from such views that may be prevalent in some circles but which diminish or weaken Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

40As for the objective of the Instruction, the Liturgy Office notes that its purpose is to treat certain matters pertaining to Eucharistic discipline while at the same time establishing further norms by which earlier ones are explained and complemented. It describes that there is, according to the Instruction, a gradation in abuses, some of which are obviously graver, some which risk the validity and dignity of the sacrament and others which are violations of the norms found in the liturgical books. 273 attention of either the local bishop or even the Apostolic See, notwithstanding the recommendation that they have recourse at the first stage to the diocesan bishop.41 After setting forth some of the important principles to be recalled to ensure the proper celebration of the Eucharist, the Commentary lists the abuses indicated by the Instruction.42

The French Episcopal Conference devoted an edition of La documentation catholique to the Instruction. It includes an introductory note from the editor, M. Vincent Cabanac, the comment of Cardinal Arinze on the day of Instruction's presentation, the text of the

Instruction itself and a commentary by Mgr Robert Le Gall, bishop of Mende and chair of the episcopal commission on the Liturgy and Sacraments. The editor, in his introduction entitled

"Vivante Eucharistie," notes that, since the Eucharist is a manifestation of the presence of

Christ at the heart of an assembly, it should not be reduced to a summary of details nor a

simple succession of rites and rubrics. After all, the Constitution on the Liturgy expresses well

how the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the entire Christian life. From the conclusion

of the Council onwards, the magisterium has frequently provided commentary on the liturgical

renewal in order for it to be a part of the life of communities. Thus, he urges that

Redemptionis Sacramentum not be read without constant reference to the conciliar documents

and the other important texts that followed. He also cautions that, while applying solely to the

Latin Church, the Instruction is to be regarded as more than a simple "Highway Code" that

prescribes what is allowed and proscribes what is forbidden. He concludes:

41Ibid., pp. 72-73.

42Certainly, the tone of these comments and observations are in sharp contrast to the reception accorded the Instruction Inaestimabile donum some twenty-three years earlier. 274

Certainly, there have been abuses. The Instruction refers to them and intends to have them corrected. But the essence of the document lies in the unparalleled riches of allowing the faithful to have greater access to the Eucharistic mystery and to Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ. When applying the prescriptions and indications of this Roman instruction, it would be very incomplete simply to follow the letter of the text without returning systematically to the very Spirit of the liturgy from which it draws its source. Any celebration of the Eucharist allows the living faith of a people to spring forth.43

In his presentation of the Instruction, Mgr Robert Le Gall describes something of the history of the document, coming as it did, in an immediate sense, from the encyclical of John

Paul II on the Eucharist. He also links the appearance of the Instruction with the Lineamenta

in preparation for the 11th General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in 2005, the theme of

which was "The Eucharist: source and summit of the life and mission of the Church," and to

the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Constitution on the

Sacred Liturgy. Bishop Le Gall notes three emphases: the need to remain vigilant; the

necessity of authentic formation; and the reminder that the Church is not the proprietor of the

liturgy but the guarantor, responsible for its proper celebration.44

The response of the largest episcopal conference in the English-speaking world, the

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, was complicated by the fact that the Holy See

had granted a recognitio for a practice proscribed in the Instruction, namely, the use of flagons

in which to consecrate the wine and to pour the Precious Blood into chalices at the Lamb of

God. The questions raised by this conflict point in a dramatic way to some of the major

problems regarding the Instruction. In a communique issued on the very day in which the

43M. VINCENT CABANAC (ed.), "Vivante Eucharistie," in La documentation catholique, 101 (2004), p. 451.

44 ROBERT LE GALL, "Serviteurs de la sainte Liturgie: Presentation de 1'Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum," in La documentation catholique, pp. 491-492. 275

Instruction was presented, Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the Conference declared: "In response to our Holy Father's mandate that bishops do all in their power to foster an

appreciation of the inestimable treasure which is the Eucharistic mystery, the Congregation

has provided us with a carefully developed tool to foster the authentic celebration of the

Mass."45 This initial communique makes no mention of the apparent contradiction between

the already approved norms and the directives contained in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

In the period following the presentation of the Instruction, the Secretariat of the

Bishops' Committee on Divine Worship posted a number of related documents,46 including

a document entitled "Preparation of Chalices for Holy Communion Under Both Kinds." It

serves as a kind of "mini-Instruction" to address the discrepancies between the already

approved norms and the new provisions of Redemptionis Sacramentum. On June 14, 2001,

the USCCB approved "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under

both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America."47 The norms, confirmed by the

Holy See on March 22, 2002, provide for the use of flagons or similar vessels and for the

pouring of the Precious Blood into chalices for distribution to the faithful during the Lamb

of God. In light of no. 106 of Redemptionis Sacramentum, it was clear that some clarification

45UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, OFFICE OF MEDIA RELATIONS, "New Vatican Instruction on the Eucharist to be Published by USCCB Publishing," at www.usccb.org/ comm/archives/2004/04-073.shtml, (March 6, 2008).

46These are the statements of the Prefect of the CDWDS, Cardinal Arinze, introducing the Instruction; a description of the Instruction prepared by the Conference itself; and a summary of the same entitled, "Thirty Questions on the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum for Diocesan Liturgy and Communications Personnel."

47The norms were published to the website of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy: http:// www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml. 276

was in order. Anticipating the questions that could be raised in this regard, this "mini-

Instruction" provides a synopsis of the correspondence between Cardinal Francis George,

O.M.I., Archbishop of Chicago and Chair of the Committee on Liturgy, and Cardinal Francis

Arinze, Prefect of the CDWDS ,48

Cardinal George wrote to Cardinal Arinze on April 27, 2004, noting the discrepancy between its norms and those contained in Redemptionis Sacramentum. He wrote a second

letter on August 2,2004, raising the question of the competence of the Congregation to revise

conference norms that had already been granted the recognitio and were duly promulgated.49

In his response of August 4, 2004, Cardinal Arinze notes that, while "a provision of

complementary legislation, once granted recognitio, may not simply be revised," he further

explains: "(1) "an instruction may develop the manner in which a law is to be put into effect

(cf. c. 34, § 1);" and (2) "the effect of Redemptionis Sacramentum, nn. 105-106 was to render

inoperative certain elements contained in nn. 36-37 of the Norms since a presumption upon

which the complementary norm has been based could no longer be maintained as being in

accord with the ius commune.'1'' Accordingly, wrote Cardinal Arinze, "the Congregation has

attempted to supply a formulation according to which the existing legislation could be

implemented in the light of the new Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, maintaining

48 USCCB COMMITTEE ON DIVINE WORSHIP, Preparation of Chalices for Holy Communion Under Both Kinds, http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/Q&a/ chalice.shtml (March 3, 2008). 49A major study on the recognitio concludes that a Roman dicastery cannot derogate from particular law by modifying a recognitio already granted. See J.M. FOSTER, The Nature and Use of the Recognitio of the Apostolic See with a Consideration of the Select Normative Decisions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, The Catholic University of America, 2007. Foster specifically addresses the issue of the flagon controversy. 277 insofar as possible the evident intentions of the Bishops in a way which could conform with the general norm of law."50 The fact remains, however, that an instruction, as an act of executive power, cannot derogate from existing particular law. According to c. 20, only a law may revoke another law.

Among other things addressed in this "mini-Instruction" are the practice of

Communion under both kinds and the pouring of the Precious Blood. The document

approaches these topics from both a theological and historical perspective as well as offers

a description of the best way to ensure the most suitable preparation of chalices to facilitate

Communion under both kinds in accordance with the provisions of Redemptionis

Sacramentum. As for the immediate question, whether this prohibition was likely to change,

the episcopal committee answered:

No. Even if the USCCB wished to reassert the USCCB Norms to permit the use of flagons, the action must be confirmed by the Congregation, which is empowered to change any decision of a Conference of Bishops, even substantially, in order to bring it into conformity with Redemptionis Sacramentum.51

The Secretariat of the episcopal committee gave no indication of how it concluded that the

CDWDS is empowered to revoke particular law, something which would require an explicit

mandate from the pope, but no such mandate was claimed, much less published.

In any event, the Secretariat's point of view was not accepted by all. A case in point

is a directive issued by the Archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahoney. On

September 4, 2004, only one month after the letter of Cardinal Arinze to Cardinal George,

'Ibid. 'Ibid. 278

Mahoney issued a statement on the implementation of Redemptionis Sacramentum in the archdiocesan paper Tidings. Among his observations, the Cardinal recommended that the

Instruction not be read in isolation but in conjunction with the encyclical Ecclesia de

Eucharistia with a focus on the positive emphases of the document. Secondly, it should be received in the context of the role which the Instruction accords to the diocesan bishop in the promotion and direction of the liturgical life of his diocese, including that of making provision, in accord with the law, of suitable norms governing the celebration of the liturgy

within the diocese. Finally, the Instruction should be received within the greater context of

the ongoing efforts undertaken by the Archdiocesan Office of Worship to implement the

vision and mandate of the Second Vatican Council.52

Mahoney concludes that it is not necessary to make any significant changes in

liturgical practices of his archdiocese. He assures his readers that he and the auxiliary bishops

and deans "have not become aware of any serious abuses," and he adds: "Most of the abuses

in Redemptionis Sacramentum do not pertain to the celebration of the Eucharist in our

Archdiocese because of our many efforts to provide intensive and extensive training in proper

liturgical norms and practice."53 The Cardinal then responded to those who had inquired as

"CARDINAL ROGER MAHONEY, "The Implementation of Redemptionis Sacramentum," September 4, 2004, http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/0910/liturgy_text.htm (April 2, 2008). Mahoney notes that, as part of the preparations for the Great Jubilee, he had written the pastoral letter "Gather Faithfully Together: Guide for Sunday Mass" (September 4, 1997). The pastoral letter provides a timetable for the implementation of the liturgical vision which the Cardinal sets forth in that same letter. Mahoney asserts: "Where this vision has been implemented a new surge of liturgical vitality has unfolded." He also notes: "The primacy of distributing Holy Communion under both kinds is emphasized in paragraphs 74 and 169 of the Letter."

53Ibid. In order to assist each parish community evaluate its liturgical practices, Mahoney announced the development of a process and a Liturgy Evaluation Form which will allow priests, deacons, religious, parish liturgists and others in liturgical leadership to assess all aspects of 279 to the continued use of specially designed carafes in which wine is presented, placed on the altar, consecrated and then poured into smaller chalices for Holy Communion. Affirming that the overwhelming experience with this practice over the years had been most positive, he declared:

Because our practice has become an Archdiocesan custom of over seven years with both the Catholic faithful and the ministers accustomed to this practice, I am willing to grant exceptions to no. 106 of Redemptionis Sacramentum for legitimate reasons, such as the following: where the altar table is too small to accommodate many chalices, thus creating a greater danger for spillage; and where the number of chalices is so large that they would visibly detract from the important sign of One Bread and one Cup, as well as increase the danger of tipping over the chalices.

In all cases, the carafes must be artistically designed for the specific purpose of holding the Precious Blood, and all ministers must be fully trained and have demonstrated their ability to pour the Precious Blood without danger.54

In contrast, Archbishop Raymond Burke, Archbishop of St. Louis, simply reiterated the norm of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

The Precious Blood may not be poured from one vessel to another, in order to avoid the risk of profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. Although a flagon or similar vessel may be used to bring the wine to the altar at the Preparation of the Gifts, it may not be used as a container of the Precious Blood (no. 106). The wine to be consecrated should be poured into the chalices beforehand or at the time of the Preparation of Gifts.55

The discrepancy in the responses to this Instruction by Cardinal Mahoney and Archbishop

Burke, especially in reference to the use of flagons or carafes and the pouring of the Precious

Blood, seems to be the appropriate place in which to consider the canonical problems raised

liturgical preparation and celebration.

54Ibid.

55ARCHBISHOP RAYMOND BURKE, "The Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum - V," September 9,2005, www.stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=9150 (April 2,2008). See also excerpts of the Archbishop's commentary in Notitiae, 43 (2007), pp. 442-448 and pp. 556-576. 280 by this Instruction. In some ways, Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 106 is symbolic of the problems raised by the Instruction, presenting one of the major challenges in the reception of this document. That the Cardinal Archbishop of a major Archdiocese within the United States would exercise his authority over the Sacred Liturgy, as permitted and encouraged by universal law, and uphold the provisions of a particular law over those contained in an act of executive power on the part of a dicastery of the Holy See, raises the issue of the relationship between executive and legislative power within the Church.

The issue is not simply a matter of the use of flagons and carafes. The concern of some commentators, as we shall see, is how, by an act of executive power, a dicastery of the

Holy See can presume to revoke an act of legislative power, namely, a general decree passed by a Conference of Bishops for its territory that had received the necessary recognitio two years earlier by that very dicastery. Something more than merely outward conformity may be required, and that is an examination of the notion of the distinction of powers and the hierarchy of canonical norms, a distinction attempted by the revised Code but not necessarily

observed in practice.56

56While noting the discrepancies in reception, we do not wish to suggest that the difference represents an uncritical acceptance, on the one hand, and an incorrigibility on the other. What such reactions may indicate is that people see the demands of communion within the Church differently. On the one hand, there are many who believe that an act of the Holy See requires an attitude not only of reverential respect but also of dutiful compliance. On the other, there are those who believe that the best way to receive such documents is through a nuanced study that seeks for the most effective way to interpret and apply the contents in such a way that is entirely consonant with what has gone before and which accords with the meaning of the law as it already stands. What is necessary in our study is the avoidance of polemic so as to receive and apply the contents of the Instruction in the most effective way possible. 281 4.2 Canonical Problems with the Instruction

In this section we shall examine some canonical problems with Redemptionis

Sacrmentum. The most serious problem raised by Redemptionis Sacramentum is more than the controversy surrounding some of its provisions, especially those which, having been recognized and permitted previously, are now proscribed. Rather, it has to do with whether or not the Instruction conforms to the meaning of the canonical institute described in c. 34,

which is an act of executive power subservient to legislation. The congregations of the

Roman Curia are primarily executive agencies and enjoy legislative authority only under the

most strict and circumscribed of conditions, yet they are often found to be exceeding, in

practice, the limits set by the law.

4.2.1 The Juridical Nature of Instructions (c. 34)

Canons 29-34 on general decrees and instructions represent something of a canonical

innovation and yet an innovation that emerges out of a long history of striving for "juridical

certainty." The purpose of these six canons is to clarify an area of law that had long been a

source of ambiguity and confusion, particularly, according to one commentator, "the problem

of the difficult demarcation between acts issued in virtue of legislative authority and those

generated by executive authority ...,"57

"MARIA JOSE CIAURRIZ, "Title III: General Decrees and Instructions, Introduction," in Exegetical Commentary, pp. 437-438. 282

This is by no means a new problem. In his reform of the Roman Curia, Pope Pius X sought to effect some clarity in this by attributing to the congregations an exclusively administrative function. But the reform did not resolve the matter satisfactorily, nor did the promulgation of the 1917 Code which did not have a title on executory decrees.

Nevertheless, on September 15, 1917, Benedict XV issued a Motu proprio in an attempt to bring some clarification of the competencies of the agencies of the Apostolic See, especially when they exceed their administrative functions.58 The Motu proprio, Cum iuris canonici, established a Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code,59 and it also contained provisions for executive acts of the dicasteries of the Holy See with the goal, according to one commentator, "to assure the stability of the legal corpus by regulating the possible normative activity contra Codicem of the congregations."60 In fact, the Motu proprio directed that, in general, such decrees be rare and few: "The Sacred Roman Congregations shall hereafter enact no new General Decrees, unless some grave necessity of the universal

Church require it.61

58Ibid., pp. 442-443.

59BENEDICT XV, Motu proprio Cum iuris canonici, September 15, 1917, in AAS, 9 (1917); English translation in Canon Law Digest, I, p. 56.

60 A. VIANA, "El Reglamento General de la Curia Romana," in Ius Canonicum, 64 (1992), p. 511. See also Maria Jose ClAURRiz, in Exegetical Commentary, p. 443.

61 Cum iuris canonici, no. II. It might also be noted that the warning that such decrees be rare and only when grave necessity requires was the result of a general sense on the part of the bishops of the Church in the period from the First Vatican Council until the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. A biographer of Pius X, explaining the motivation for his tackling such a reform of the Church's legislation very early in his pontificate, stated: "For a long time, first as a priest, and then as a bishop, he had become aware of the inconvenience presented by the multiplicity of laws, decrees, special provisions, exemptions, and the fact they were scattered through compendia of diverse origin and unequal authority. It had been a long-expressed wish in the Church to unify all 283

Furthermore, the limited nature of such decrees was indicated by the fact that the dicasteries in question were obliged to inform the Supreme Pontiff if the decree was not in agreement with the legislation of the Code, with a series of requisites by which the pope was to be advised in order that he might give approval to decrees that ran contrary to the existing legislation. However, these provisions were not always followed in practice. Congregations issued not only general decrees but instructions which contravened the norms of the Code, thereby derogating from universal legislation. According to one commentator:

It is indisputable that the popes knew this and permitted it; thereby obviating the legal procedure established so that a Congregation could modify the Codex. Thus the congregations exercised legislative power with the consent of the Pontiff. A crisis was then created by the distinction of functions, a distinction that Benedict XV had cautiously wished to affirm, not in the Code where perhaps it might have attained its objective, but in a lesser document that was systematically ignored by the Holy See itself and interpreted in a confused manner by the doctrine.62

One of the guiding principles of the revision of the Code was to more clearly distinguish between the different aspects of church governance, establishing a distinction between the law, on the one hand, and administrative acts and general provisions issued by

authorities with executive power, on the other. Principle Seven proposed that "the diverse functions of ecclesiastical power, namely legislative, administrative and judicial, be clearly

distinguished."63 The principle was given canonical expression and was articulated in c. 135

as also in cc. 29-34 on General Decrees and Instructions.

these legislative provisions, to set them in order and adapt them to new conditions of life. In 1865, during a consultation which took place with a view to preparing for the Ecumenical Council which was to take place at the Vatican, many bishops had requested this codification of canon law." (See CHIRON, Saint Pius X, p. 149.)

62ClAURRlZ, Exegetical Commentary, p. 441.

Communicationes, 1 (1969), p. 83. 284

When considering the accomplishment represented by c. 135, with its division of the power of governance into legislative, executive and judicial power, it has been wisely noted that we must not draw the premature conclusion that the principle of division or separation is so clearly delineated in the ecclesial community as one would find in civil jurisdictions.64

This is not a question of the separation of powers.65 Within the Church the exercise of governance, whatever form it takes, is founded upon the principle of the plenitudo potestatis enjoyed by the supreme authority within the Church, whether the Roman Pontiff or the

College of Bishops together with the Roman Pontiff. In the Church, all the supreme powers are concentrated in the pope and the bishops; the distinctions referred to here speak of the material object of the exercise of such power, a power entrusted to the supreme authority by divine law. Unlike civil jurisdictions, where power is often divided, within the ecclesial reality, the pope enjoys full power in the Church, whether legislative, administrative or judicial. He may delegate or entrust the exercise of his power to others, but it always represents and draws its foundation from this fullness of power that he enjoys.66

The purpose of the distinction of the three powers is to have juridical certainty, that is, to know the value and weight of various documents as also their application and, most importantly, if they are not legislative texts to be assured of their conformity to existing law.

This is the principle of legality in canon law.67 It provides a certain stability and avoids the

64CIAURRIZ, "Title III: General Decrees and Instructions, Introduction," pp. 438-439.

65J. I. ARRIETA, "Title VIII: Power of Governance, Commentary," in Annotated Code, p. 119.

66CIAURRIZ, "Title III: General Decrees and Instructions, Introduction," pp. 440-441.

67Ibid., pp. 439-440. 285 unsettling experience of arbitrary exercises of power as also conflict between various agencies of governance, all of which can have a deleterious effect on the ecclesial community.68

Despite these noble goals, the practice of the Holy See after the 1983 Code is not always consistent with cc. 29-34. According to Ciaurriz, "it becomes legitimate to doubt the will of the supreme ecclesiastical authority and the Roman Curia to accept so completely the distinction and decentralization of functions in the canonical system," that of "limiting the faculties of the congregations to the administrative sphere and the tribunals to the judicial

while reserving the legislative power over the universal Church to the supreme legislator."69

T. Rincon-Perez asserts that "it seems to be taken for granted that the principle of juridical

certainty is sometimes violated in the Church, when it comes to making norms.... One oft-

repeated fact is that of the promulgation of dispositions of a secondary nature, or which in

theory have a rank inferior to the law, in that they are issued by hierarchically inferior organs,

but which de facto have the force of ordinary law, and hence can be derogated."70 The

consequence of such encroachment on the part of executive agencies is juridical uncertainty

with its attendant consequences, among which is rendering ineffective existing legislation.

Again, according to Ciaurriz:

68The lack of precision regarding the distinction of powers and functions can give rise to various inconsistencies and ambiguities and even inter-dicasterial conflicts, and these in turn have repercussions that have an unsettling effect upon the ordered and harmonious life of the Church.

69ClAURRIZ, Exegetical Commentary, p. 441.

70"Actos normativos de caracter administrativo," in La norma en el Derecho Canonico. Actos del HI Congreso Internacional de Derecho Canonico, Pamplona, 1979, pp. 960-961; cited in ibid, p. 445. 286

The efficacious instrument of this disorder was precisely the legislative activity of the congregations and the other curial bodies. They were based "in practice which became habitual" on the papal approval of their decisions, without keeping in mind the level of the decisions or a regular procedure for obtaining that approval and manifesting it.71

The desire for juridical certainty came to the fore in the debates at the Council with calls for the reform of the Curia and in the treatment of the authority of a bishop for his diocese. The Pastoral Decree on Bishops, Christus Dominus, no. 9 recommends:

In exercising his supreme, full and immediate authority over the universal Church, the Roman Pontiff employs the various departments of the Roman Curia, which act in his name and by his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors. It is the earnest desire of the Fathers of the sacred Council that these departments, which have indeed rendered excellent service to the Roman Pontiff and to the pastors of the Church, should be reorganized and modernized, should be more in keeping with different regions and rites, especially in regard to their number, their names, their competence, their procedures, and methods of coordination. It is hoped also that, in view of the pastoral role proper to bishops, the function of the legates of the Roman Pontiff should be more precisely determined.

Hence, one of the guidelines governing the revision of the Code called for a clear distinction between legislative, administrative and judicial power to facilitate the exercise of governance on the part of the supreme authority of the Church in a manner more ordered and sensitive to the situations of those who are the beneficiaries of such governance. Again, the emphasis was not upon the complete separation of powers but a distinction necessary for preventing the arbitrary usurpation of legislative power, and for avoiding conflicts between various dicasteries, so as to achieve consistency and uniformity in practice and to arrive, as far as is possible, at juridical certainty. However, even with the reform of the Curia in 1967, provision

71 Ibid., p. 445.

72SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops Christus Dominus, October 28, 1965, in AAS, 58 (1966), pp. 673-696; English translation in Flannery, pp. 564-590, at p. 568. 287 was made for more, not less, pontifical involvement in the approval of decisions of the dicasteries, reinforcing what had become habitual-the publication of texts by executive agencies that derogated from law and introduced new law.73 Such was the context in which the Code commission carried out its labours in an effort to correct the ambiguity and uncertainty of such practices.

As set forth in c. 135, the power of governance is distinguished as legislative, which can be delegated only by the supreme authority; executive, which in terms of the Roman

Pontiff is exercised by the dicasteries of the Roman Curia; and judicial, which is exercised vicariously by the tribunals of the Apostolic See.74 Canons 135 and 29-34 represent an attempt to circumscribe the powers of the dicasteries and to set limits to assist in arriving at the much desired juridical certainty. Some would have preferred even further limits.

Lombardia suggests that it would have been advisable to draw up norms for the Roman Curia forcing dicasteries to assume full responsibility for the provisions they issue and expressly prohibiting them from submitting them to the Roman Pontiff for approval.75

This, then, is the background to the innovation represented by cc. 135 and 29-34 and, what is of immediate concern here, the nature of the instructions of c. 34. Like general executory decrees, instructions have an "auxiliary or accessory character" to the law,

73ClAURRIZ, Exegetical Commentary, p. 446.

74The CDF also has judicial power for trials involving alleged crimes against faith or morals, but in recent times it has handled such cases through an administrative process.

75CIAURRIZ, Exegetical Commentary, p. 448. Such would, perhaps, have been too radical a limit even on the authority of the pope who, after all, depends upon the initiative of executive agencies to bring new problems to light and address new situations. The pope relies upon these dicasteries to keep him informed and up-to-date and to take initiatives that might, with his approval, modify existing legislation. 288 possessing an "intrinsic dependency" to already existing laws to the extent that they can neither derogate from laws nor be contrary to existing laws.76 The limited scope and highly circumscribed and subordinate nature of instructions, as well as of general executory decrees, is also indicated by the fact that they cease to have force not only by means of an explicit or implicit revocation by the competent authority but also, as c. 34, §3 indicates, by the cessation of the law for whose execution they were enacted. All of this demonstrates that they are "inferior to the law," subject to the principle of legality.77

Thus, in theory, general executory decrees and instructions are completely dependent upon existing legislation and, as a result, may neither contradict the already existing provisions of established law nor alter existing law.78 General executory decrees are issued by those enjoying executive power, are absolutely dependent upon already existing law and thus inferior to the existing legislation. Any of their provisions that contradict existing

legislation are null, lacking all force. Therefore, in the process of receiving and applying

administrative documents, it is always appropriate to assess whether the norms in them stand

up to these foundational rules of the canonical system.

76Ibid.,p.461. 77J. Huels explains this principle as one of the goals of cc. 31-34, meaning that acts of executive power must always be in accord with, subordinate to and never contrary to legislation. See J. HUELS, "New Eucharistic Discipline" in Studies in Church Law, 2 (2006), pp. 33-59, at p. 50.

78What M. MOODIE says of general executory decrees equally apply to instructions. A document of executive power, "no matter what title it has, can further specify a law but it cannot nullify the provisions of that law. Should it do so, those provisions of the decree which contradict the law have no effect. They are not to be observed nor can they be used as an argument to suggest that the law has been changed or repealed. See "Title III: General Decrees and Instructions [cc. 29- 34], in J. BEAL et al. (eds.), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, New York/Mahwah, N.J., Paulist Press, 2000, p. 99. 289

Instructions have an even narrower scope than general executory decrees due to their intended audience. General executory decrees are made for those bound by the law, whereas instructions bind those whose duty it is to enforce the law.79 Canon 34 contains three stipulations concerning instructions: a definition, their relationship to already existing laws and the means by which the provisions of an instruction cease to have force.

Can. 34 § 1. Instructions, namely, which set out the provisions of a law and develop the manner in which it is to be put into effect, are given for the benefit of those whose duty it is to execute the law, and they bind them in executing the law. Those who have executive power may, within the limits of their competence, lawfully publish such instructions.

§ 2 The regulations of an instruction do not derogate from the law, and if there are any which cannot be reconciled with the provisions of the law, they have no force.

§ 3 Instructions cease to have force not only by explicit or implicit revocation by the competent authority who published them or by that authority's superior, but also by the cessation of the law which they were designed to set out and execute.

While instructions share a number of the same features as general executory decrees, they are not, by definition, directed towards faithful at large. Rather, they are intended to assist those whose responsibility it is to execute laws. Whereas general executory decrees have a general application and bind all those bound by the laws (c. 32), the juridical institute of an instruction is far narrower. Furthermore, whereas general executory decrees are to be promulgated according to specific prescriptions (c. 31, § 2), the Code does not specify how

79The 1917 Code offered no description of such a document. Nevertheless, in the already referred to Motu proprio Cum iuris canonici, Benedict XV described instructions as follows: "The ordinary function will therefore be not only to see that the prescriptions of the Code are religiously observed but also to issue Instructions,'as need arises, whereby those prescriptions may be more fully explained and appropriately enforced. These documents are to be drawn up in such a manner that they shall not only be in reality explanations of and complements to the canons, but also that they may be clearly seen to be such." In AAS, 9 (1917), p. 484 (emphasis in the original); English translation in Canon Law Digest, vol. 1, p. 56. 290 instructions are to be published.80

Fundamentally, as c. 34, §1 states, the purpose of an instruction is to clarify the content of the law and determine the manner and means for its execution. In the same context, any regulation within an instruction which is evidently contrary to existing law lacks force (c. 34, §2). It is precisely on account of this relationship to already existing laws that the primary way by which instructions lose their force (aside from explicit or implicit revocation by the competent authority) is by means of the cessation of the law which they were intended to execute (c. 34, § 3).

The code explicitly includes norms for instructions in order to provide juridic certainty that instructions are not laws and that laws cannot be enacted under the title of "instructions." Rather, like general executory decrees, instructions are acts of executive authority, that is, administrative acts. Both general executory decrees and instructions are issued by those who possess executive authority .... They are both dependent upon a prior law for their existence and effect.81

The reliance on existing law is the link between general executory decrees and instructions.

The difference, as noted, is the intended audience. The first is directed toward all those

obliged by the law. The second is directed to those responsible for enforcing the law and

ensuring its observance. Nevertheless, even though instructions are dependent upon existing

laws, there is some latitude in the sense that a determination must be made as to the best way

to ensure application and observance. Furthermore, they "provide more detailed regulations

in an attempt to ensure a more uniform application of the law accommodated to current

circumstances. Instructions are based on the presumption that coordination of activity fosters

°ClAURRIZ, Exegetical Commentary, p. 465. 'MOODIE, New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, p. 100. 291 the common good."82 What an instruction cannot do, at least in principle, is add anything that runs contrary to existing legislation!

It has been in the area of the Sacred Liturgy where the use of instructions has been most common. There have been instructions designed to draw out the significance and application of principles of liturgical renewal as set forth in the Constitution on the Sacred

Liturgy. Then there have been instructions to enforce already existing liturgical legislation as found in the newly revised liturgical books. A great deal of the liturgical renewal was thus implemented by executive rather than legislative initiatives. However, this activity occurred to a large extent before the 1983 Code had established the general rules of cc. 29-34.

Since the promulgation of the 1983 Code and the Regolamento generate della Curia

romana, it is not possible for a norm of executive power to contradict previous legislation

unless that norm is approved in forma specifica by the pope.83 Canon 34 does not make any

reference to an instruction being approved in forma specifica, nor did any of the earlier

commentaries on the Code. As one canonist notes: "The reason why the commentators do

not specifically mention the possibility of an instruction being approved in forma specifica

82Ibid. In general, instructions have not been used only to elaborate on canons. In the recent past, there have been a number of instructions treating a variety of doctrinal matters including the interpretation of the Bible within the Church, questions on liberation theology, the ecclesial vocation of the theologian, respect for life, the study of patristics in seminaries, and interreligious dialogue. Such instructions elaborate on the teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals but are not intended to apply canonical norms. See F. MORRISEY, Papal and Curial Pronouncements: Their Canonical Significance in Light of the Code of Canon Law, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 1995, pp. 28-29.

83"In order to be considered approved in forma specifica by the Supreme Pontiff, it is necessary that the act use the exact words in forma specifica approbavit." See SECRETARY OF STATE, Rescript ex audientia Ss.mi, Regolamento generale della Curia romana, in AAS, 91 (1999), p. 680, art. 126, § 4; translation in Exegetical Commentary, vol. 5, p. 233. 292 is likely due to the fact that ordinarily there is no need for such approval because instructions, by their nature and express purpose, are designed to uphold and implement already existing law."84 Up to the present, only one instruction has received pontifical approval in forma specified?5

The key canonical issue is not the use of carafes and flagons but the problem that a

Roman Congregation appears to claim that its Instruction can revoke particular law. This claim is contrary to c. 20.86 One might attempt to argue, given the fact that the Instruction was mandated by the Pope by means of an act of magisterium, that of an encyclical, and that it was approved by the Pope to be published, that this would seem to reveal, even if in a highly unusual manner, the mind and will of the supreme authority of the Church on the matters covered by this Instruction. However, such an attempt would fail, since the mind of the legislator is revealed in his law, not in encyclicals (acts of magisterium) or instructions

(acts of the Roman congregations), and the papal approval was not a legislative act. Thus we

see that the attempt on the part of the revised Code to distinguish between norms of

84J. HuELS, "Interpreting an Instruction Approved in forma specifica" in Studia canonica 32 (1998), p. 13. It might be recommended, with matters so weighty and that touch so intimately upon the life of worship within the Church, that such documents receive that approbation which does indeed raise the level of the document. Of course, one might observe that, from the perspective of those who produce documents, everything is of vital importance. 85C0NGREGATI0N FOR THE CLERGY, Instruction On Certain Questions Concerning the Cooperation of the Lay Faithful in the Ministry of Priests Ecclesiae de mysterio , August 15, 1997, in AAS, 89 (1997), pp. 852-877.

86Canon 20 speaks of the revocation of a law {lex) by another law {lex), which clearly indicates that revocation can only be done by an act of legislative power. 293 executive and legislative power may well indeed be acknowledged in principle but not consistently observed in practice.

4.2.2 Specific Canonical Observations

In light of the search for juridical certainty and of fidelity to the principle of legality, an examination of the content of the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum must take into account not only the theological aspects, a number of which have already been explored in the third chapter, but also of the need for coherence and consistency in the canonical system and in the juridical documents produced at all levels of authority within the Church. This necessitates an honest assessment of not only the strengths of Redemptionis Sacramentum but also some weaknesses.

Among those who have given detailed attention to these matters is John Huels. He

has written extensively on liturgical law and the general norms of law, including studies on

this Instruction.87 Speaking of the overall issue of encroaching legislative activity on the part

of executive agencies, especially as it relates to the juridic institute known as an instruction,

Huels notes:

In actual fact, one seldom finds an instruction of the Roman Curia whose every norm is limited to clarifying laws, elaborating on them, and determining methods for observing them. Typically, at least some of the provisions of an instruction are not closely related to already existing laws. In fact, not infrequently, instructions contain at least some new disciplinary norms only remotely rooted in law. Such

. 87See J. HUELS, "Canonical Observations on Redemptionis Sacramentum," in Worship, 78 (2004), pp. 404-42; and "New Eucharistic Discipline in the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum and the Need for a Reform of Canons 29-34," in Studies in Church Law, 2 (2006), pp. 33-59. The commentary in this section is inspired mainly by these studies. 294 norms treat a broad subject matter also treated in the law (like eucharistic discipline), but they say something new not said heretofore in the law. They do not just clarify, implement, and enforce the law; they establish new discipline.88

Huels has given much attention to the canonical issues and difficulties associated with this

Instruction. He shows how it has introduced "novelties" and contains some provisions which

"appear to be contrary to universal law."89 He says the Instruction contains features more characteristic of a legislative text than an act and instrument of executive power.90

In reading, assessing and interpreting the Instruction, a number of principles should be kept in mind. Firstly, the Instruction is an act of executive power, approved in forma communi; anything in the Instruction contrary to the law lacks all force. Secondly, in view of the principle of non-retroactivity of laws (c. 9), all acts performed before the Instruction was published remain effective and lawful, even if contrary to its provisions. Thirdly, since particular laws may only be revoked by later universal legislation contrary to it, and only by means of an express revocation (c. 20), particular laws in force as of March 19,2004, when

88Ibid., "New Eucharistic Discipline," p. 34. 89Another prominent commentator on the Instruction has reached these same conclusions. See H. SCHMITZ, Die Liturgie-Instruktion Redemptionis Sacramentum von 2004: kirchenrechtliche Anmerkungen zum Erlafi der Kongregationfur Gottesdientst und die Sakramentenordnung vom 25. Marz 2004, Adnotationes in Ius Canonicum, no. 36, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 2005.

90Ibid. Some have interpreted such examination as "hairsplitting and minutiae" and part of an effort to resist implementing the provisions of RS. (See S. BENOFY, "Deconstructing Discipline: Inventing New Ways to Resist the 'New Era of Liturgical Reform'," in Adoremus Bulletin, Online Edition, http://wwww.adoremus.org/0904LiturgicalReform.html (April 2, 2008). Such an opinion misses the point and is off the mark. While the dispositions and indications given in RS are timely and necessary, Huels' call for clarity and coherence is important and necessary so that, also at the highest levels of authority within the Church, norms are enacted in a way that conforms to the very jUridic institutes established in the law, a law promulgated by the Roman Pontiff. The matters raised by Huels are worthy of consideration and will hopefully assist in ensuring a more effective exercise of governance and contribute to juridical certainty. 295

Redemptionis Sacramentum took effect, are unaffected by the new provisions. Fourthly, the

Instruction does not affect customs contrary to its provisions that already enjoy the force of law, whether such customs be centenary, immemorial, or of thirty-years' duration (cc. 24-

26), since only a legislative act or contrary legal custom can revoke a custom that enjoys the force of law (c.28).91

There are indeed many innovations in Redemptionis Sacramentum not found in previous law. These may be grouped in several categories. The first category treats fundamental matters: a clarification of terminology (elaboration of the meaning of public worship, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and the inappropriateness of using the term "presider" for lay persons at Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest); a threefold hierarchy to describe lay liturgical ministers (instituted lectors and acolytes, those temporarily deputed and all other liturgical ministers); and three that touch upon

ecclesiastical authority (the discerning of whether or not to have the distribution of Holy

Communion during Services in the absence of a priest, with the Conference of Bishops to

determine the same, in effect, granting a new legal competency to the conferences, permitting

the bishop to prescribe the vernacular for a scheduled Mass, and the warning to bishops not

to remove that liberty foreseen by the liturgical norms).

A second area has to do with preceptive or prohibitive norms contained in the

Instruction. One new preceptive norm directs that instructions and personal testimonies by

the laity take place after the postcommunion prayer (no. 74). However, the Instruction

Ecclesiae de mysterio (an Instruction approved in forma specifica and thus legislative) did

91HUELS, New Eucharistic Discipline, pp. 35-36. 296 not exclude such forms of preaching after the homily. The preceptive norm in this case is an

innovation and, whatever its implications, it certainly does not contravene the special law

that a layperson may speak after the homily at Masses for children in cases where the priest

has difficulty adapting himself to the children's mentality.92 Other examples are the

elaboration of circumstances proscribing the celebration of Mass in conjunction or

connection with a common meal or banquet (no. 77) and the prohibition against the pouring

the Precious Blood after the consecration from one vessel to another as also the use of

flagons, bowls or other vessels (no. 106). In conjunction with this, the same article proscribes

the use of glass, earthenware, and clay. This is a new prohibition and, according to the

standard rule of law (c. 9), non-retroactive. This means that any such vessels, so long as they

are solid, noble, not easily susceptible to breakage or deterioration, and in accord with the

determinations made by conferences of bishops, may continue being used. The ambiguity

reflected here lies in the fact that, while GIRM, no. 329 sets forth the conditions for the

design of Eucharistic vessels, the norm contained in no. 77 represents an elaboration that not

only extends the meaning of the law but also is contrary to already recognized and approved

norms previously approved by a conference of bishops and, as a result, lacks binding force

in the territory of such a conference.93 Similarly, Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 161

92 S.C. for DIVINE WORSHIP, Directory for Masses with Children Pueros baptizatos, no. 24, November 1, 1973, in AAS, 66 (1974), pp. 30-46.

930ne of the fundamental problems with the Instruction is not that it enlarges upon or elaborates already existing law, nor even that it adds to the content of the law, but that in some instances is contrary to the existing legislation, whether universal or particular. An example of new content to the law is RS, no. 130 which elaborates on the characteristics that render a place of reservation of the Blessed Sacrament "suitable for prayer," including quietness of location, available space before the tabernacle and a supply of benches or seats of kneelers. While the first part of no. 130 was a restatement of both GIRM 314 and c. 938, § 2, the second part, 297 restricts the permission to allow a lay person to preach in a church or oratory, entrusting the

competency to determine such to local ordinaries and only in individual instances; yet, c. 766

states that lay preaching is permitted in accord with the policy of the conference of bishops

with the result that, if a conference had established such norms, they would hold sway and

take precedence over the provisions of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

A third category of innovation of the Instruction are newly articulated rights. The

Instruction mentions fourteen rights altogether, some already implicit in the law and, in

general, covered by the overall principle enunciated in c. 214.94 Among the newly identified

rights are the right to have true and suitable sacred music especially on Sundays, as also the

right to an altar, vestments and sacred linens that are dignified, proper and clean (no. 57) and

the right to both visit the Eucharist frequently for adoration as also to take part in adoration

before the Blessed Sacrament exposed at least at some time in the course of the year (no.

139). The rights enjoyed by the faithful also imply responsibilities on the part of those whose

task it is to ensure those rights are met, hence the stipulation of no. 18.95 Even more, the

faithful can vindicate those very rights identified, including lodging a complaint concerning

describing those characteristics, represents something of a development. While adding something new, it does not conflict with already established universal law.

94Canon 214 states: "The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church ...." HUELS, "New Eucharistic Discipline," p. 42, notes: "What is new in Redemptionis Sacramentum in this regard is not the fundamental right itself but the diverse ways it is expressed and emphasized, demonstrating that it is a constitutive principle underlying the foundation of the entire Instruction."

95Number 18 states: "It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God, and devotion to the saints." 298 liturgical abuses to the diocesan bishop or those equivalent to them in law, or even to the

Apostolic See (no. 184).96 This elaboration of rights is another way in which an instruction can rightly and legitimately elaborate and develop already existing law but, once again, with the condition that these never contradict the lex vigens.

A fourth category of innovations in the Instruction consists of some new obligations.97 Among the new obligations are the specifications that the diocesan bishop be zealously vigilant (sedulo vigilet) concerning the homily (no. 68); the necessity, in the case of Masses for a large crowd, of taking precaution (oportet caveat) to prevent occasions of inter-communion contrary to the Church's magisterium and discipline, including pastors informing those present of the teaching and practice to be observed (no. 84); that pastors take care {curent pastores) that altar linens are kept clean (no. 120); that ordinaries see (curent) that there is an adequate supply of vestments in all churches and oratories subject to their jurisdiction (no. 126); that ordinaries diligently foster (impensius foveat) Eucharistic adoration (no. 136); that the tradition of public Eucharistic processions not be lost (oportet ne pereat) and new ways be sought (exquirantur) of holding them (no. 144); that where extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are appointed in a widespread manner, and out

96According to no. 184: "Any Catholic, whether priest or deacon or lay member of Christ's faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity."

97HUELS, in "New Eucharistic Discipline," p. 44, explains: "Most of the obligations given in RS are already in the law, and those that are new are expressed in the form of mild commands, or exhortations, mainly in the subjunctive present. Such mild commands express a duty of one's office, but they effectively leave the fulfilment of the duty to the good judgement of the officeholder in question." 299 of true necessity, that the diocesan bishop should issue (oportet edai) special norms (no.

160); and that the ministry of the pastoral assistant should be directed {tendat) to facilitating the ministry of priests and deacons, encouraging vocations to priesthood and diaconate, and ensuring that the laity are carefully trained to carry out their liturgical functions (no. 150).

The fifth category of innovation is the division of abuses into three categories according to their gravity: more serious delicts (graviora delicto), grave matters (res graves)

and other abuses. The first abuses are canonical crimes reserved to the Congregation for the

Doctrine of the Faith. The second, a new category, consists of any abuse "that puts at risk the

validity and dignity of the Eucharist" (no. 173). For these latter, Redemptionis Sacramentum,

nn. 181-182 describes a process by which to investigate and correct the same. When

complaints are referred to the CDWDS, the dicastery notifies the ordinary who is to

undertake an investigation, sending to the dicastery a copy of the acts of the inquiry as also

the penalty imposed. This is not a penal process unless the one who commits such an abuse

had already received a warning (c. 1319) but has chosen to continue the abuse. Then the

offence becomes a crime, not because these grave matters are themselves crimes, but because

the refusal to obey the precept of one's ordinary and persisting in disobedience is a crime (c.

1371,2°).

A sixth innovation is the reprobation of certain abuses. The Instruction expressly

reprobates eight of the grave abuses: breaking the host at the time of consecration (no. 55);

altering texts pronounced in the liturgy (no. 59); a layperson giving a homily during Mass

(no. 65); the distribution in the manner of Communion of unconsecrated hosts or other edible

or inedible things before or during Mass (no. 96); the suspension of Mass on the pretext of 300 promoting "a fast from the Eucharist" (no. 115); the use at Mass of common vessels that are lacking in quality, are devoid of artistic merit, are mere containers, or are made from glass, earthenware, clay or materials that break easily or that easily rust or deteriorate (no. 117); priests celebrating Mass without proper vestments (no. 126); and priests present at Mass but leaving the distribution of Communion to lay persons (no. 157). In comparison, the CIC reprobates only six practices,98 none of which is related to the celebration of the liturgy; and the newly revised GIRM, consisting of 399 articles, reprobates only one practice!"

Finally, there is a category of innovations consisting of norms contrary to universal

law: the specification that, save for danger of death, a layperson may receive Holy

Communion a second time in one day only when participating in a Eucharistic celebration

(no. 95);100 the requirement that conferences of bishops issue norms on Communion under

both kinds, including the manner of such distribution as well as its extension (no. 101);101 the

limitation of extending Communion under both kinds where a "notable part" of the people

98Canons 396, §2; 423, §1; 526, §2; 1076; 1287, §1, and 1425, §1. "GIRM, no. 311 says the custom of reserving seats in the church for private persons must be reprobated.

100Canon 917 says that anyone (qui) who receives Communion a second time that day may only do so in the Eucharistic celebration; this includes clergy as well as laity. While the context of this specification "layperson" was "The Distribution of Holy Communion" which would seem to refer primarily to the Communion of the lay faithful whereas the following section addresses the Communion of priests, save for this identification of no. 95, the rest of the provisions refer to the "faithful". This suggests a certain imprecision. Christ's faithful includes all the baptized and to use the phrase "the faithful" can include clerics as well as laity. Furthermore, priests may, "in rare and exceptional cases and with reasonable cause" assist in the church during the celebration of the Mass in the manner of the lay faithful (no. 128). Hence, the distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful could possibly include priests. It would have been more precise to entitle the section "The Communion of the Lay Faithful."

101GIRM 283 states that the conferences "may issue" such norms, not that they are obligated to do so. 301 refrain from approaching the chalices (no. 102);102 the requirement that the diocesan bishop make the determination regarding the celebration of Mass outside a sacred place (no. 108);103 the specification that vestments that are more festive and noble which may be used on

solemn occasions, even if not the colour of the day, refers to "vestments made many years

ago" (no. 127);104 the requirement that preaching by the laity in churches and oratories be permitted "only on account of a scarcity of sacred ministers in certain places, in order to meet

the need" (no. 161 ).105

While Redemptionis Sacramentum conforms to aspects of the juridical figure of an

instruction, it differs in a number of significant ways: its audience, being bishops, priests,

deacons and lay faithful and not only the executors of the law; the revoking formula, which

is very rare in instructions since executive acts do not revoke contrary legislation (including

particular laws and customs with the force of law); the reprobation of specific abuses; the

introduction of numerous new provisions in the ius vigens; the granting of a new competency

102This limitation does not exist in the liturgical law which, in GIRM, no. 281, speaks very positively of Communion under both kinds. In view of the fact that, for a significant period in the history of the Church, people refrained from receiving save for the Easter Duty, education is the best way to answer such situations where large numbers of the faithful refrain from receiving from the chalice.

103Canon 932, § 1 allows the priest to make that determination. This restriction may, in fact, be the result of some priests having made inappropriate determinations, hence the restriction to the diocesan bishop and, hence, a change that is contrary to universal legislation.

104This specification is not contained in GIRM, no. 346.

105Both c. 766 and the Instruction Ecclesiae de mysterio, art. 2 allow for lay preaching not only in cases of necessity but also if, in the words of the latter, there exist other "permanent, objectively verifiable situations of need or advantage." The limitation of RS conflicts with a competency that the law already gives to conferences of bishops, reducing such situations to the qualifying condition of a necessity born of the shortage of ordained ministers. 302 to conferences of bishops; the identification of twenty-five grave abuses; the establishment of new obligations; and the recognition of rights of the faithful not explicit in the law. All these features are typically associated with legislation, not an instruction.

Clearly, the norms of Redemptionis Sacramentum that are contrary to the law lack all force. However, what of the other categories of innovation? Interestingly, Huels suggests the problem may lie in part in the wording of cc. 29-34, which suggests that general executory decrees and instructions cannot add anything new to the juridic order, something which has never conformed to the praxis Curiae.106 He recommends a revision of cc. 29-34 that would replace the categories of general executory decrees and instructions with that of "general

administrative norms."107 These are the norms in juridic documents published by the Roman

congregations or other executive authorities. Such norms are no different in substance from

laws other than their level of authority. Laws, emanating from a legislative authority, have

higher juridic value than the general administrative norms in documents of executive

authority. Otherwise, they are exactly the same in the subject matters they may treat and in

the ways in which they are formulated.

Certainly, this approach is a useful effort to bring clarity to an otherwise murky area

within the legislation, and it might indeed help to overcome the present ambiguities. Even

106HUELS, in "New Eucharistic Discipline," p. 57, states: "In our view, the principle of legality does not imply that executive authorities can only execute the law, adding nothing new to the juridical order not based on existing law. Rather, the principle of legality mainly means that executive authorities cannot act contrary to the law. The importance of cc. 29-34 lies in the subordination of norms of executive power to legislation."

107Ibid., pp. 58-59. He offers, as a remedy, a complete reworking of these canons to accomplish the twofold goal of ascertaining juridical certainty and upholding the principle of legality. 303 if there be a revision of the Code in the near future,108 however, it is not at all clear that those within the Roman Curia who exercise executive power are even aware that there is a problem. Until such time, the ambiguity seems likely to continue. That two diocesan bishops, one a Cardinal Archbishop and another an Archbishop, belonging to the same conference of bishops, can come to two different conclusions on some of the provisions of this Instruction suggests that the much desired juridical certainty is still a long way from realization.109

Another problem with c. 34 is its defining instructions as being given only to the executors of the law. Given their wide-ranging subject matter, instructions nearly always concern a wider audience than ordinaries and other executors of the law. It is almost impossible to conceive of a situation where such documents can be relegated to or restricted to the realm of those enjoying executive authority. Given the lively interest and concern on the part of all sectors of the Church on so sensitive a matter as the celebration of the Mass, it is not possible to limit such a document primarily to the executors of law without reference to the faithful.110

108Paul Counce and Dan Smilanic, respectively the President and President-elect of the Canon Law Society of America, were told by officials of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts that Pope Benedict XVI has directed the Pontifical Council to review the Code of Canon Law "with a view toward identifying those places and ways in which it might be improved." In CLSA Newsletter (June 2008), p. 5. 109It is well worth noting that Archbishop Raymond Burke has recently been appointed Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura.

110This is very much in evidence even in the protocols and procedures on dealing with clerical crimes, or the Instruction SST which reserves certain delicts to the competency of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 304

The great interest on the part of the faithful, clergy and laity alike, concerning this and similar instructions suggests that the theory behind c. 34 does not conform to the reality of the Church. It is not possible to think instructions affect no one but the executors of the law, excluding altogether those who, in the long run, stand to benefit from their provisions. The role of the lay faithful and their participation in the life and mission of the Church precludes a narrow understanding of the audience for such instruments of governance. Instructions that treat the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy have implications that should impact the life of the faithful. Indeed, it is not just the executors of the law but all the faithful who are the ultimate audience and beneficiaries of such texts.

4.3 Proposed Remedies to Abuses in the Celebration of the Eucharist

In this final section of the chapter, we shall propose three remedies for the problem

of liturgical abuses, especially abuses connected with the celebration of the Eucharist. The first two remedies are connected: (1) the strengthening of the liturgical formation of

candidates for the priesthood and (2) the ongoing liturgical formation of priests and liturgical

ministers. Without such formation, emphasized repeatedly at the Second Vatican Council

and by the Apostolic See in post-conciliar documents, the desired renewal will be virtually

impossible.''' The third is a rather modest proposal but, we think, a potentially effective one,

1' 'Such a remedy does not exclude the importance of ongoing formation of the lay faithful but is simply a recognition of the absolutely indispensable role of the priest as president of the Eucharistic Assembly who, by virtue of the power of order, brings about the confection of the Eucharist (c. 901). The fact is that, no matter how well formed the faithful of any particular Catholic community, especially the parish, unless the pastor or those priests who assist him are well attuned to and imbued with both the spirit of the liturgy as also its norms and prescriptions, then efforts at 305 namely, that certain norms of Redemptionis Sacramentum identifying abuses should be incorporated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal as a kind of De defectibus in celebration? as is found in the Missal of the extraordinary form of the Rite of Mass. Thus legislated, there could be no confusion over those things that the Apostolic See, in exercising its primary responsibility for the Roman Rite, has proscribed as abuses in the celebration of the Eucharist.

4.3.1 Formation of Future Priests

The Second Vatican Council emphasized the necessity of liturgical formation on the part of those preparing for ordination. Liturgical formation is vital, given that a principal and primary purpose of priestly ministry is presiding over the community's worship. As a consequence, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy called for the proper training of professors (no. 15) and said that the study of the sacred liturgy should be among the compulsory and major courses in seminaries and religious houses of studies. Furthermore, the vision espoused by the Constitution is that, far from being compartmentalized, the teaching of the liturgy should be integrated into other areas as well.

In theological faculties it is to rank among the principal courses. It is to be taught under its theological, historical, spiritual, pastoral and juridical aspects. In addition, those who teach other subjects, especially dogmatic theology, sacred scripture, spiritual and pastoral theology, should-each of them submitting to the exigencies of his own discipline-expound the mystery of Christ and the history of salvation in

renewal to eradicate abuses will be next to impossible. 306

a manner that will clearly set forth the connection between their subjects and the liturgy, and the unity which underlies all priestly training.112

Furthermore, the Constitution exhorts that, in all seminaries and religious houses, clerics should receive a liturgical formation in their spiritual lives.

For this they will need a proper initiation, enabling them to understand the sacred rites and participate in them wholeheartedly. They will also need to celebrate the sacred mysteries and popular devotions which are imbued with the spirit of the sacred liturgy. Likewise, they must learn to observe the liturgical laws so that life in seminaries and religious institutes may be thoroughly influenced by the liturgical spirit.113

In the Decree on the Training of Priests, Optatam totius, the Council also urged the proper formation of future priests. In general principle, the Decree states:

Major seminaries are necessary for priestly training. In them the whole training of the students should have as its object to make them true shepherds of souls after the example of Our Lord Jesus Christ, teacher, priest and shepherd.... They should be trained for the ministry of worship and sanctification, so that by prayer and the celebration of the sacred liturgical functions they may carry on the work of salvation through the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments.114

The Decree also calls for an interconnection and integration of the truths of the faith and, recalling previous conciliar exhortations, declares: "Sacred liturgy, which is to be regarded as the first and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit, should be taught as prescribed in articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" (no. 16). "5 Again, regarding the integration of liturgical formation as an expression of pastoral care, the Decree

n2SC, no. 16, in Flannery, p. 8.

113Ibid.

1 '"SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Training of Priests Optatam totius [OT], no. 4, October 28, 1965, in AAS, 58 (1966), pp. 713-727; English translation in Flannery, pp. 707-724, at pp. 710-711.

'Ibid., Flannery, p. 720. 307 states:

The pastoral preoccupation which should characterize every feature of the students' training also requires that they should be carefully instructed in all matters which are especially relevant in the sacred ministry. These are, principally, catechetics, preaching, liturgical worship and the administration of the sacraments, works of charity, in assisting those in error and unbelievers, and other pastoral duties.116

In 1970, the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education set forth general principles and norms governing the formation of future priests in the Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis.1 n The Ratio situates the liturgical formation of future priests both in the context of their interior life as also their intellectual and academic formation. Since the liturgy is the primary means of strengthening the spiritual life, the Ratio emphasizes the importance of daily participation in the Eucharist and the reception of Holy Communion. Likewise, the

Divine Office, seen in its relationship to the Eucharist, is formative of the spiritual life of priests, and this requires that students be instructed in this prayer and given a greater appreciation of the scriptures, including the psalms. To this purpose, the Ratio requires that parts of the Divine Office be recited in seminary and that the liturgy be presented in its relationship to daily life.118

mOT, no. 19; Flannery, pp. 721-722.

117 S ACRED CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION, Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis, January 6, 1970, in AAS, 62 (1970), pp. 321-384; English translation in The Pope Speaks, 15 (1970), pp. 264-314 [referred to as the Ratio fundamentalis or Ratio], The document arose both out of the deliberations of the first Synod of Bishops in 1967 which discussed, among other matters, the renewal of seminaries, and also as the result of conferences of bishops seeking direction from the Holy See in order to implement Optatam totius. The Ratio became the foundational document outlining general guidelines for priestly formation, with various conferences providing more detailed norms based on both this document as also conciliar teaching.

;Ibid., The Pope Speaks, pp. 292-293. 308

The second emphasis on the liturgy in the Ratio regards the intellectual and academic formation of the candidates for the priesthood. Sacred Liturgy is to be regarded a principal subject in their theological education and presented not only from a juridical point of view but also from its theological and historical perspectives. Particularly, they are to be taught the liturgical norms, especially the reasons underlying these norms, as also understanding the distinction between that which is changeable and that which, by divine institution, is immutable.119

The same Congregation issued an Instruction on Liturgical Formation in Seminaries in 1979.120 Noting the importance of the liturgy in the life of the Church and in the life of future priests as also the opportuneness of the context, the Congregation, in conjunction with the Congregation for Divine Worship, decreed the publication of the Instruction as a complement to the Ratio. Treating two aspects of formation, that of the practical, which has to do with the correct and proper celebration of the liturgy, and the theoretical, that of the doctrine, the Instruction directed that great care be taken in preparing students to prepare their office as moderators and presidents of the liturgical assembly, especially the Mass.

Much of the practical directives have to do with emphasizing the liturgical life of the

seminary as the most effective school of formation. The Instruction calls for liturgical

celebrations that accord seminarians an experience of "the most fully developed and richest

forms of celebration."

119Ibid., The Pope Speaks, pp. 302-303.

120 S ACRED CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION, Instruction on Liturgical Formation in Seminaries In ecclesiasticam futurorum, June 3, 1979, in Notitiae, 15 (1979), pp. 526-549; English translation in The Pope Speaks, 25 (1980), pp. 321-341. 309 Liturgical celebrations in the seminary should, therefore, be a model as regards both the execution of the rites and the spiritual and pastoral tone, and as regards the observance of the rubrics and texts given in the liturgical books and of the norms set down by the Holy See and the episcopal conferences.121

The second part of this Instruction focusses on the teaching of the liturgy in seminaries, recalling the exhortation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy that the study of the sacred liturgy be ranked among the obligatory and important courses (no. 16). The students should be taught the close connection between the liturgy and the doctrine of faith as also the importance of the liturgy for the life of the Church and for the doctrine and discipline of the sacraments. Likewise, from a pastoral point of view, they are to understand the principles of the liturgical renewal promoted by the Council in light of sound doctrine and the tradition of the Church (both East and West). To this end, they are to be instructed in the norms governing the renewal so as to better understand the reasons for the adaptations and changes while always able to distinguish between what is divinely instituted and what is subject to change. They are also to be apprised of the issues that arise from the ecumenical dialogue encouraged by the Council.122

Teachers of liturgy are directed by the Instruction to provide students a study of the

Institutiones that preface the Missal and the Liturgy of the Hours as well as the praenotanda at the beginning of each chapter of the Roman Ritual. The Instruction also contains some

quite specific directives, such as that the students are to learn the reasons why the rubrics use

terms such as de more, pro opportunitate, or Us quae laudabiliter fiunt. The seminarians are

121Ibid., The Pope Speaks, pp. 326-327.

122Ibid., pp. 335-336. 310 also to be taught the history of the rites, composed as they are of unchangeable elements of divine institution and other elements which can and ought be varied in the course of time.

Attention is also to be accorded to the traditions of the Oriental Churches.123

Other matters addressed by the Instruction include the provision and endowment of a liturgy professor as also the integration of liturgical studies with other disciplines, for example, sacred scripture (for which a richer fare had been provided), dogmatic theology, especially on the sacraments, canon law as well as other disciplines. It is recommended that the same professor teach both liturgy and sacramental theology.124

One year later the same Congregation issued a "Circular Letter Concerning Some of the More Urgent Aspects of Spiritual Formation in Seminaries" to emphasize the centrality

of the spiritual life in priestly formation.125 It too emphasizes the importance of the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, especially the Eucharist, as also Eucharistic adoration. One

consequence of a sound spiritual life and devotion to the Eucharist is a respect for the

discipline of the Church.

Understanding the Eucharist leads one to understand and to respect meticulously the discipline of the Church in this matter. People often speak today about "creativity." However, this can only be understood correctly within the framework of the rules formulated by the Church. The rules which order prayer must be accepted with the same obedience as those which concern faith, according to the classical formula lex orandi est lex credendi. These are inseparable. The rules formulated by the Church are deeply linked to the essential values which individuals might lose sight of, even inspired, as they might be, by real pastoral concerns. Thus it is possible for faith to

123Ibid., pp. 336-338.

124Ibid., pp. 338-339.

125 S ACRED CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION, Circular Letter concerning Some of the More Urgent Aspects of Spiritual Formation in Seminaries, January 6,1980, in CLD, vol. 9, pp. 871 -894. The original version is in English. 311

become disordered. Furthermore, this produces difficult problems and painful divisions.126

The Instruction says that the reference point in this is to be the Second Vatican Council which, if properly and faithfully observed, does not cause disruption or "irritate the People of God" due to "novelties and excesses."127

This is why the seminary must ensure that future priests understand the seriousness of what is at stake and help them not only to practice but also to love obedience. There is quite enough room for new initiatives in the liturgy within the framework of the official directives.128

One area where the emphasis upon fidelity to the liturgical discipline of the Church, sometimes overlooked, is in the area of moral theology and, in particular, that of justice.

There is a close connection between the right ordering of worship and the establishment of justice. This is because, on the one hand, an attendant virtue that flows from the cardinal virtue of justice is the virtue of religion and, primary in fulfilling that virtue, is rendering proper worship to God.129 Likewise, since justice is rendering to all their due, then a high priority has to be placed on reaffirming the rights of the lay faithful to the proper celebration of the liturgy in accord with liturgical norms and approved liturgical books. Those training to be priests should be taught that intentional or careless disregard of such norms offends

126Ibid., p. 885.

127Ibid. The Letter gives as an example the abandonment of Latin which it describes as much an abuse as those who would insist upon its exclusive use.

128Ibid., p. 886. For a thorough treatment of the conciliar and post-conciliar documents on the formation of future priests before the promulgation of the 1983 Code see J.A. BARRY, Ecclesial Norms for Priestly Formation, Ottawa, Saint Paul University, 1982, ix, 252 p.

129For a description of the classical doctrine in this matter, see A. FAGOTHEY, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice Based on the Teachings of Aristotle and St. Thomas, 2nd ed., St. Louis, The C.V. Mosby Company, 1959; reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, IL, 2000, pp. 263-274. 312 against natural justice and thus also offends the One who is the object of worship. At a moral level, such offences violate the twofold commandment of love for God and love for neighbour. The gravity of disregarding liturgical norms should be so emphasized that, while excluding scrupulosity, an examination of conscience might be in order, with recourse to the

Sacrament of Penance if one is conscious of having sinned.130 It would be most appropriate when, in seminary courses in moral theology and formation on matters of justice, attention be paid to some of the ways in which a person violates the obligations of justice and the

attendant virtue of religion through deliberate or negligent acts of commission or omission

that constitute clearly defined liturgical abuses.

This approach might seem rigorous or even extreme. However, if by comparison one

were derelict in other duties such as the administration of temporal goods, the neglect of

pastoral care, or keeping parochial records, each of which would represent serious

negligence, then the gravity of faithfully carrying out one's responsibilities in keeping with

established norms must be impressed upon all who prepare for future ministry as also the

consequences for failing to do so, both for the Church as also for one's own spiritual well-

being, always keeping in mind the supreme law of the Church (c. 1752).

130We have noted in our commentary on RS that abuses in the liturgy represent a falsification of worship which is an offense against the virtue of religion, as St. Thomas treats this in the second part of the Summa in his treatise on prudence and justice. Among examples of falsification are those who offer worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or divine authority and according to ecclesiastical custom. Thomas quotes St. Ambrose: "He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than Christ delivered it." Referring to the ways in which the Church orders her worship, Thomas writes: "The various customs of the Church in divine worship are in no way contrary to the truth: therefore we must observe them and to disregard them is unlawful." (See Summa Theoi, II, 2, q. 93, a. 1; English translation in St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: First Complete American Edition in Three Volumes, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, New York, Benziger Brothers Inc., 1947, vol. 2, pp. 1593-1594.) 313 4.3.2 Ongoing Formation of Clergy and Other Liturgical Ministers

In addition to the liturgical formation of future priests is the importance of assuring the ongoing liturgical formation of clergy, also including an emphasis on the moral consequences and implications of disregarding liturgical norms. This is a repeated refrain of

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy as also post-conciliar documents implementing the liturgical reforms. Without the participation of priests in ongoing liturgical formation, the renewal proposed by the Council would be greatly hampered. The Council Fathers said that the goals of the liturgical reforms cannot be realized without the involvement of pastors of souls. It would be futile to entertain any hope of realizing this unless they "become fully imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy and attain competence in it."

Thus it is absolutely essential, first of all, that steps be taken to ensure the liturgical training of the clergy. Priests, both secular and religious, who are already working in the Lord's vineyard, are to be helped by every suitable means to a fuller understanding of what they are about when they perform sacred rites, to live the liturgical life and to share it with the faithful entrusted to their care.131

Likewise, the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests recommends ongoing study and urges that, in view of the advances in both secular culture and the sacred sciences, priests should continue growing in "knowledge of things divine and human" to facilitate dialogue with their contemporaries and to assist in the work of evangelization and the apostolate.

Bishops are encouraged either individually or in union with others to consider ways in which r priests may continue their studies and that some may have an opportunity to devote

themselves to a more in-depth study of the sacred sciences. This is to ensure that there will

be a suitable numbers of priests who can contribute to the education of seminarians, other

lSC, no. 14, in Flannery, p. 8. 314 priests and all the faithful.132 The same sentiments are expressed in the Ratio fundamentalis:

"Priestly training, of its nature, is such that it must be continued and increasingly perfected throughout the whole of a priest's life."133 This has given rise to a number of canons in the

Code of Canon Law, in particular c. 279.

§ 1 Clerics are to continue their sacred studies even after ordination to the priesthood. They are to hold to that solid doctrine based on sacred Scripture which has been handed down by our forebears and which is generally received in the Church, as set out especially in the documents of the Councils and of the Roman Pontiffs. They are to avoid profane novelties and pseudo-science.

§ 2 Priests are to attend pastoral courses to be arranged for them after their ordination, in accordance with the provisions of particular law. At times determined by the same law, they are to attend other courses, theological meetings or conferences, which offer them an occasion to acquire further knowledge of the sacred sciences and of pastoral methods.

§ 3 They are also to seek a knowledge of other sciences, especially those linked to the sacred sciences, particularly in so far as they benefit the exercise of the pastoral ministry.

One possible remedy to liturgical abuses might be by providing opportunity for priests to study the rubrics of the Missal, particularly, the praenotanda of the Roman Missal and those of the other liturgical books, as well as the norms for the carrying out of these rites.

It would not be inappropriate that, through the course of several years, the presbyterate have the occasion to study in detail the liturgical norms as also the legitimate adaptations permitted. It is often the case that priests themselves are under mistaken notions as to that which is prescribed and that which is prohibited. Ongoing formation, both of clergy and lay ministers, may yield a more intimate and, dare one say, a more loving understanding and

132SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests Presbyterorum ordinis, no. 19, December 7, 1965, in AAS, 58 (1966), pp. 991-1024; Flannery, pp. 897-898.

]Ratio Fundamentalis, nn. 100-101, in The Pope Speaks, pp. 313-314. 315 familiarity with the liturgical norms to equip them better for their ministry in the Church.

This formation would not only focus on the external norms themselves but also on the spirit and theological foundations upon which they are based and inspired. Such formation could easily be coordinated within the territory comprising a conference of bishops as also the ecclesiastical province or the dioceses of a region.

Clergy study days, and even the annual retreat, are opportunities to devote some time to a study of the liturgical norms on a regular, possibly a yearly, basis. A diocese, group of dioceses from the same ecclesiastical province, a region or even a conference of bishops could ensure similar sound formation of the lay faithful and all engaged in the varied liturgical ministries. These must be conducted by liturgical experts who themselves are properly trained. As Redemptionis Sacramentum requires, liturgical experts, especially those who work with the various liturgical commissions and offices of dioceses as well as conferences of bishops, "are to be chosen from among those whose soundness in the Catholic faith and knowledge of theological and cultural matters are evident."134 Ordinaries should ensure that those who lead such study days or times of formation be characterized by these

qualifications.135

134RS, no. 25, in Eucharistic Documents, p. 104. 135As no. 33 of the Instruction RS rightly noted, quoting no. 5 of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests: "Priests should go to the trouble of properly cultivating their liturgical knowledge and ability, so that through their liturgical ministry, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit will be praised in an ever more excellent manner by the Christian communities entrusted to them." 316 4.3.3 Identification of Abuses in the Celebration of the Mass

For initial and ongoing liturgical formation to be effective and bear fruit in the liturgical assemblies, it must be clear to ordained and lay ministers what the Church considers to be abuses, whether they be graviora delicta, grave abuses or other abuses.

Redemptionis Sacramentum sets out a number of them, varying in gravity, affecting both validity and lawfulness as well as the efficacy of the liturgy. A minimal emphasis on "mere validity" is not sufficient, as Vatican II taught (SC 11). This is echoed in Redemptionis

Sacramentum: "The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart. A merely external observation of norms would obviously be contrary to the nature of the Sacred Liturgy."136 It is not enough to be concerned only about those things that touch upon or would adversely affect the validity of the celebration, or with those matters considered unchangeable. Other norms, though not of the gravest nature or of divine law, nevertheless are the product of the Church's tradition and, as Redemptionis Sacramentum notes, are imbued profoundly.

Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. For the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning. As for the visible signs which the Sacred Liturgy uses in order to signify the invisible divine realities, they have been chosen by Christ or by the Church. Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition, which it is the Church's task to

'RS, no. 5, in Eucharistic Documents, p. 98. 317 transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.137

For those entrusted with the sublime task of leading in worship in the person of

Christ, a careless indifference or a feigned ignorance that is used to justify such indifference is unacceptable. Such actions objectively constitute a grave evil on account of the harm they cause the Church and individual faithful, not to mention the spiritual harm to the priest in question. The rationale for John Paul II's mandating a juridical document on Eucharistic discipline in Ecclesia de Eucharistia was to uphold the dignity of the Eucharistic celebration.

He explained that the mystery of the Eucharist was "too important and precious to risk impoverishment or compromise through forms of experimentation or practices introduced" without prior approval of ecclesiastical authority, or abuses committed through "a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation" and which have constituted "a source of suffering for many" or which, by a reaction against formalism, had led to "unauthorized innovations."

I consider it my duty, therefore, to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated.138

Given the gravity of such abuses and their consequences, it needs to be emphasized that, should these be committed intentionally or with an attitude of indifference (we are not speaking here of some accidental, unavoidable and imforseen defect), then they constitute not only externally verifiable abuses but, even more, given the supreme law of the Church, put in jeopardy the soul of the one who commits such abuses or allows them to occur. The

137RS, no. 9, in Eucharistic Documents, p. 99-100.

mEcclesia de Eucharistia, no. 52, in Eucharistic Documents, p. 34. 318 liturgical norms bind in conscience sub gravi those responsible for the celebration of the liturgy, especially the ordained. This is addressed in the Instruction Redemptionis

Sacramentum.

Let bishops, Priests and Deacons, in the exercise of the sacred ministry, examine their consciences as regards the authenticity and fidelity of the actions they have performed in the name of Christ and the Church in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. Let each one of the sacred ministers ask himself, even with severity, whether he has respected the rights of the lay members of Christ's faithful, who confidently entrust themselves and their children to him, relying on him to fulfil for the faithful those sacred functions that the Church intends to carry out in celebrating the Sacred Liturgy at Christ's command. For each one should always remember that he is a servant of the Sacred Liturgy.139

To ensure clarity in this regard, it would be helpful to have the abuses identified in

Redemptionis Sacramentum inserted in the opening pages of the Missal, at least the most common abuses. Included should be the abuses touching upon the matter and form of the

Eucharist, the person of the celebrant, the recipients of Communion, and the requisites for the worthy celebration of the Eucharist. Included in the Missal as liturgical law, there would be no juridical uncertainty as to their gravity or their obligatory character. Of course, this would not at all detract from legitimate liberty and the adaptations and choices permitted in the norms themselves. Their inclusion in both the GIRM and the Missal of the extraordinary form would help eliminate the ambiguities that arise from the fact that Redemptionis

Sacramentum is not a legislative text.

'RS, no. 186, in Eucharistic Documents, pp. 142-143. 319 4.4 Summary

We have seen how, in the course of the reception of the Instruction, reactions from various sectors indicated a certain unease with aspects of the document. Even among some bishops there were conflicting responses to some of its provisions. This suggests not willful disobedience but some shortcomings in the Instruction itself. Chief among these concerns, from the canonical viewpoint, is the encroaching activity on the part of executive authority with respect to matters that ought to be regulated by legislation. This raises the issues of the division of powers in the exercise of governance within the Church, the goal of assuring juridical certainty, and the need to uphold the principle of legality. In a number of ways,

Redemptionis Sacramentum appears to go beyond its scope as an instruction as defined in c. 34. This could, however, be the fault of the very definition of instructions, which does not conform to the activity of the dicasteries either before or after the 1983 Code took effect. A revision of the Code should attend to this issue, always maintaining the foundational rule that a norm of executive power is null if it is contrary to legislation.

We have proposed some modest remedies to the problem of liturgical abuses in the celebration of the Eucharist. First, it is necessary to re-emphasize the importance of the liturgical formation of candidates for the priesthood. Second, ongoing formation of all liturgical ministers must be offered. This is especially necessary for priests, given the primary and indispensable role of the priest in the celebration of the Eucharist. Third, so that there will be no uncertainty, those matters identified in the Instruction as constituting abuses in the celebration of the Mass should be included as part of the General Instruction to the Roman 320

Missal, similar to the section De defectibus in celebratione Missae found in the Missal of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. This would help to remove any ambiguity about the binding force of these norms, thereby assuring juridical certainty and upholding the principle of legality. 321 CONCLUSION

In the course of this study we have endeavoured to consider the Instruction

Redemptionis Sacramentum, firstly, in light of its remote history, beginning with the apostle's admonition to the Christian community at Corinth. The meaning of the Eucharist called for appropriate dispositions and behaviour. The concern for the proper celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy received the attention of all levels of Church authority, including ecumenical councils, local synods and even those in political authority. Nevertheless, in the

West, a process began by which the Apostolic See increasingly assumed greater responsibility for the regulation of the liturgy, at least for the Roman Rite. This development was as much the result of external as internal factors. Among the initiatives which furthered this process included the Gregorian Reforms, the development of the Missal and its spread by mendicant religious communities and, in the wake of the upheavals of the sixteenth century, the post-Tridentine reforms including the production of the Pian Missal of 1570 and the reorganization of the Roman Curia with the establishment of the Congregation of Sacred

Rites. Although there were still movements towards "national" and other local liturgical usages in the centuries following Trent, particularly in France, by the mid-nineteenth century, there was a growing desire to draw closer to the Apostolic See, and one of the ways this was expressed was through the uniform use of the Roman liturgical books.

The beginning of the twentieth century and the spread of the liturgical movement saw

a new emphasis upon frequent Communion and the active participation of the faithful in the

liturgy, especially by means of the restoration of Gregorian Chant. Other incremental changes 322 were introduced in different aspects of liturgical discipline but always under the direction of the Apostolic See, a point made by Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical letter, Mediator Dei. With the call of the Second Vatican Council, among the matters raised in its preparation were liturgical concerns including the request for the use of the vernacular as also concelebration and changes to Eucharistic discipline such as the Eucharistic fast. The first document approved by the Council was on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium. It contains the guiding principles that would set the stage for a major reform of the Roman Rite which began even as the Council was in session. While new competencies were granted to both territorial bodies of bishops as also to diocesan bishops, these were in accord with the norm of law and under the direction of the Apostolic See. In fact, the extensive overhauling of the

Roman Rite was, for the most part, a process directed from the centre. It culminated with the promulgation of the 1969 Missal.

In the period following the promulgation of the new Missal, which is the proximate history of the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, the Holy See undertook efforts to urge compliance with the letter and spirit of the new liturgical norms. Some matters frequently addressed in magisterial and juridical texts in this period were the distinction of roles between the ordained ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of all the faithful; the

importance of the Eucharistic Prayer as also the necessary use of approved liturgical and biblical texts; greater provision of opportunities for the distribution and reception of Holy

Communion (including the admission to Communion of baptized non-Catholics under

certain conditions, persons with developmental disabilities, and persons unable to tolerate

wheat bread or wine). Likewise, this period saw the publication of a new ritual on Holy 323

Communion and the worship of the Eucharist outside Mass along with a reaffirmation of the importance of the Eucharist adoration. A final theme of importance in this period was the moderation and regulation of the liturgy by ecclesiastical authorities at various levels and the necessity of their remaining vigilant lest abuses creep into ecclesiastical discipline.

These recurring themes would be revisited by the Instruction Redemptionis

Sacramentum, the subject of the third phase of this study. Much of this document is not new but is a repetition of earlier norms in documents of the Holy See, and most especially in the

General Instruction of the Roman Missal of 2002 as also the norms governing Eucharistic worship outside of Mass in the ritual of 1973. Among the fundamental concerns of the

Instruction are the meaning of active participation; the role of the laity in the celebration of the liturgy, especially in those ministries considered extraordinary and assumed by a temporary deputation; the proper celebration of the Mass (especially the Eucharistic Prayer and related matters concerning the heart of the Mass); the norms governing the distribution and reception of Holy Communion; the worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass; and the responsibility for regulating the liturgy. Among the novelties are the numerous references to the rights of the faithful, several of them newly articulated; the proscribing and reprobation of specific practices, some of whichhad already received the recognitio of the Apostolic See;

the gradation of abuses; and the invitation to the faithful to make known their complaints

regarding liturgical abuses to ecclesiastical authorities, including the Apostolic See.

In the fourth chapter we considered the reception of Redemptionis Sacramentum in

light of the canonical doctrine of the same. The variations in reception, as illustrated by the

different responses of two American archbishops, suggests that there is indeed some juridical 324 uncertainty surrounding provisions of the Instruction. From the promulgation of the first revised Code of Canon Law in 1917, there was an effort on the part of the Supreme Authority of the Church to circumscribe the activity of those with executive power, providing strict conditions to be observed in order to prevent encroaching legislative activity on the part of executive bodies. The goal of upholding juridical certainty and the principle of legality were behind the provisions of Benedict XV s Motu proprio Cum iuris canonici, but these conditions were not always observed. In some respects, Redemptionis Sacramentum has more the character of legislation than that of the instructions of c. 34. This is seen particularly in its express reprobation of certain practices; the granting of a new competence to episcopal conferences; the establishment of new obligations; the identification of new abuses; the classification of a abuses into a threefold hierarchy; the intended audience (bishops, priests, deacons and the lay faithful, not just the executors of the law as in c. 34, §); the use of a general revoking formula typically associated with legislative texts (everything to the contrary notwithstanding). However, the manner of the Instruction's approval {in forma communi) can only lead to the conclusion that the text is not legislative but remains an act

of executive authority. Therefore, those norms of Redemptionis Sacramentum that are

contrary to the law lack all force in keeping with the rule of c. 34, §4.

In several respects, therefore, it appears that Redemptionis Sacramentum goes beyond

the modest description of an instruction as indicated by c. 34. Nevertheless, in view of the

fact that the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus entrusts to the Congregation for Divine

Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments a wide competency in the regulation of the

liturgy (art. 62), and in view of a possible revision of the 1983 Code in the near future, it may 325 well be time to consider revising the canons on general decrees and instructions (cc. 29-34).

Such a revision should uphold the values behind these canons, mainly the principle of legality and the hierarchy of juridical norms, but the canons should be reformulated to minimize conflicts with the actual practice of the Roman Curia.

As a way of eliminating ambiguity regarding those areas of the Instruction that have received contradictory responses, we propose that the Holy See inscribe into the pages of the

General Instruction of the Roman Missal a listing of those abuses proscribed by

Redemptionis Sacramentum. This could be done with no loss of respect for legitimate differences and adaptations as well as for the distinction between norms that are preceptive, directive or facultative. A listing of abuses, akin to those found in the Missal of the extraordinary form of the Mass, would eliminate doubt about their juridical value and force.

This, in turn, would better assure the essential unity of the Roman Rite even as it is expressed today in diverse languages and with local adaptations.

Another refrain of numerous ecclesiastical documents, beginning with the

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, is that the carrying out of a genuine liturgical renewal requires both the adequate preparation of future clergy and the ongoing formation of priests.

The best efforts at liturgical renewal will be of little avail if it does not take into account the absolute necessity of the proper liturgical formation of candidates for the priesthood and the ongoing formation of the clergy including, among other things, a careful and regular study

of the norms governing the celebration of the Mass.

St. Thomas situates his treatment of the falsification of worship by means of liturgical

abuses under the title of the virtue of justice. For Thomas, liturgical abuses have as much to 326 do with moral theology as they do with other theological disciplines. Abuses in the liturgy represent an offence against the virtue of justice, first in terms of the virtue of religion, in what we owe to God, but also the justice of rendering to the community what is their due.

Redemptionis Sacramentum emphasizes this often, particularly in stressing the right of the faithful to the liturgy of the Church, a right expressed variously fourteen times in the

Instruction.

Redemptionis Sacramentum was mandated by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and it was prepared by two dicasteries of the Roman Curia, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. While there are some ambiguities and debatable points in the Instruction, which practitioners and commentators of the canonical science must take seriously, these problems do not undermine the overall importance of the document. In service to the Church and to her worship, and in response to the demands and obligations of ecclesial communion, the provisions of the Instruction must be received with the greatest of respect. They provide complementary norms to those contained in current liturgical books and other sources of liturgical law. They assure greater reverence in the celebration of the

Eucharist as also its worship outside of Mass. Those matters that represent not only an elaboration of present law but are new norms, even those that are contrary to existing law, could be remedied readily by their inclusion in the opening pages of the Missal, promulgated by the Supreme Authority, thus excluding all doubt and ambiguity concerning their

relationship to existing laws and binding force. 327

Nevertheless, the call on the part of some within the canonical community that there be greater precision in the production of such documents is also welcome. Such precision would help to preclude doubts and confusion. With respect to Redemptionis Sacramentum, such precision would contribute to the overall goal of the Instruction, the elimination of abuses that have a detrimental effect upon the Church's worship. Such worship is offered to the Divine Majesty and from it are derived incalculable graces for the faithful who join themselves to that offering. As Pope Benedict XVI noted in his homily at the concluding

Mass for the Forty-ninth International Eucharistic Congress held in Quebec on June 22,

2008:

"The Mystery of Faith": this is what we proclaim at every Mass. I would like everyone to make a commitment to study this great mystery, especially by revisiting and exploring, individually and in groups, the Council's text on the Liturgy, "Sacrosanctum Concilium" so as to bear witness courageously to the mystery. In this way, each person will arrive at a better grasp of the meaning of every aspect of the Eucharist, understanding its depth and living it with greater intensity. Every sentence, every gesture has its own meaning and conceals a mystery.... I urge priests especially to give due honour to the Eucharistic rite, and I ask all the faithful to respect the role of each individual, both priest and lay, in the Eucharistic action. The liturgy does not belong to us: it is the Church's treasure.140

140POPEBENEDICTXVI, Homily, Concluding Mass, 49th International Eucharistic Congress, Quebec City, June 22, 2008; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008 /documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080622_quebec_en.html (July 29, 2008). 328

Bibliography

Sources Acta et decreta Concilii plenarii Quebecensis primo anno Domini MCMIX, Quebec, Typis L'actionSocialeLimites, 1912.

Acta etdocumenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano IIapparando, Vaticano, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1960, v. ill-31cm, 1-2-3.

Benedicti XIV, Pont. Opt. max., olim Prosperi Cardinalis de Lambertinis, editio novissima ad postremam remondinianam omnino exacta, XVII vols., Prati in Typographia, Aldina, 1743.

BENEDICT XV, Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, May 27, 1917, in AAS, 9, pars II, pp. 5-8; English translation E.N. PETERS (ed.), The 1917 Pio- Benedictine Code of Canon Law, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2001, pp. 21-24.

, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio Cum iuris canonici, September 15, 1917, in AAS, 9 (1917), pp. 483-484; English translation in Canon Law Digest, vol. 1, p. 56.

BENEDICT XVI, Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, in AAS, 99 (2007), pp. 777-781; English translation in Origins, 37 (2007-2008), pp. 129-132.

CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Sunday Celebrations of the Word and Hours, Ottawa, CCCB, 2005.

CATHOLIC BISHOPS' CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES, Department for Christian Life & Worship, Statement on Redemptionis Sacramentum, April 30, 2004.

, Summary Guide on Redemptionis Sacramentum, April 30, 2004, http://www. liturgyoffice.org.uk/Documents/RSsummary.pdf (February 19, 2008).

, Liturgy Newsletter, September, 2004, http://www.litui-gyoffice.org.uk/ Newsletter/Volume4/Sept04.html (February 19, 2008).

Codex iuris canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus Benedicti Papae XV auctoritate promulgatus, Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917; English translation E.N. PETERS (ed.), The 1917Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2001. 329

Codex iuris canonici auctoriate Ioaninis Pauli PP. IIpromulgates, fontium annotatione et indice analytico-alphabetico auctus, Libreria editrice Vaticana, 1989; English nd translation E. CAPARROS et al. (eds.), Code of Canon Law Annotated, 2 ed. rev., Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2004.

CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY, Instruction Mos iugitur, February 22, 1991, in AAS, 83 (1991), pp. 443-446; English translation in Origins 20 (1990-1991), pp. 705-706.

CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY et al., Instruction Ecclesiae de mysterio, August 15,1997, in AAS, 89 (1997), pp. 852-877; English translation in Origins, 27 (1997-1998), pp. 397, 399-409.

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Circular Letter Quattuor abhinc annos, October 3, 1984, in AAS, 76 (1984), pp. 1088-1089; English translation in Origins, 14 (1984-1985), p. 290.

, Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest, in Notitiae, 23 (1988); English translation in Origins, 18 (1988-1989), pp. 301, 303-307.

, Instruction on Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy Varietates legitimae, January 25, 1994, in AAS, 87 (1995), pp. 288-314; English translation in Origins, 23 (1993- 1994), pp. 745-756.

, Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, March 28,2001, in AAS, 93 (2001), pp. 685-

726; English translation in Origins, 31 (2001-2002), pp. 19-32.

, Response to dubium, in Notitiae, 37 (2001), pp. 259-260.

, Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines, December 17, 2001, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002. , Indult, Purification of Sacred Vessels by Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, March 22,2002 (prot. 1382/01/L), in BCL Newsletter, 38 (2002), p. 68.

, Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25,2004, in AAS, 96 (2004), pp. 549-601; English translation in Eucharistic Documents for the New Millennium, Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 2004, pp. 93-160.

, Presentation of the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, April 23, 2004, at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_ doc_2.(May31,2004).

, Letter of the Secretary to the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, September 17, 2007, Prot. N. 723/05/L. 330

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Inaestimabile donum, April 3,1980, in AAS, 72 (1980), pp. 331-343; English translation in Origins, 10 (1980-1981), pp. 41-44.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter to Bishops, Sacerdotium ministeriale, August 6,1983, in AAS, 75 (1983), pp. 1001-1009; English translation in Origins, 13 (1983-1984), pp. 229-233.

. Letter Communionis notio, May 28, 1992, in AAS, 85 (1993), pp. 838-850; English translation in Origins, 22 (1992-1993), pp. 108-112.

, Circular Letter, "Reception of Communion: Divorced and Remarried Catholics," September 14,1994, in AAS, 86 (1994), pp. 974-979; English translation in Origins, 24 (1994-1995), pp. 337, 339-341.

, Letter on the Use of Low-gluten Bread and Mustum for the Eucharist, June 19, 1995, Prot. No. 89/78, in WOESTMAN, W.H. WOESTMAN, Sacraments: Initiation, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Commentary on Canons 840-1007, Ottawa, Faculty of Canon Law, 2004, pp. 415-416.

, Letter on More Grave Delicts Reserved to the Same Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ad exequendam ecclesiasticam legem, May 18, 2001, in AAS, 93 (2001), pp. 785-788; English translation in W.H. Woestman, Ecclesiastical Sanctions and the Penal Process: A Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 2nd ed. rev. and updated, Ottawa, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 2003, pp. 310-313.

, Letter to Presidents of Conferences of Bishops, "Use of Low-Gluten Bread and Mustum for the Eucharist, July 24, 2003 (Prot. N. 89/78-17498), in WOESTMAN, Sacraments, pp. 417-419.

CONGREGATION OFSACRED RITES, Decreta authentica Congregationis SacrorumRituum ex actis eiusdem collecta eiusque auctoritate promulgata, 5 vols, Rome, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1898-1901; vol. 6 (1912); vol. 7 (1927).

CONSILIUM, Declaration Passim quandoque, June 15, 1965, in Notitiae, 1 (1965); English translation in DOL, nn. 404-405, p. 116.

, Letter of the President, Cardinal G. Lercaro, Le renouveau liturgique, June 30, 1965, in Notitiae, 1 (1965); English translation in DOL, nn. 407-418, pp. 117-122.

i 331

, Letter of the President, Cardinal G. Lercaro, L'heureux developpement, January 25, 1966, in Notitiae, 2 (1966); English translation in DOL, nn. 419-429, pp. 122- 125.

, Declaration Da qualche tempo, December 29, 1966, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 85- 86; English translation in DOL, nn. 433-434, pp. 127-128.

COUNCIL OF TRENT, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, translated and introduced by J.J. Schroeder, O.P., Rockford, IL, TAN Books and Publishers, 1978.

De sacra communione et de cultu mysterii eucharistici extra missam, editio typica, Vatican City, Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 1973; English translation in The Rites of the Catholic Church: as revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and Published by Authority of Pope Paul VI, Study Edition, prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, New York, Pueblo Publishing Co, 1983 (= The Rites), pp. 469-532.

DENZINGER, H., Enchiridion Symbolorum: The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy J. Deferrari from the Thirtieth Edition, Fitzwilliam, NH, Loreto Publications, 2004.

The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2006.

JOHN XXIII, Apostolic Constitution Veterum sapientia, February 22, 1962, in AAS, 54 (1962), pp. 129-135.

, Address Prima sessio, December 8,1962, in AAS, 55 (1963), pp. 35-41; English translation in The Pope Speaks, 8 (1962-63), pp. 398-403.

JOHN PAUL II, Address Pontificatus exordia, October 17,1978, in AAS, 70 (1978), pp. 919- 927; English translation in Origins, 8 (1978-1979), pp. 291-294.

, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis, March 4, 1979, in AAS, 71 (1979), pp. 257-324; English translation: http://www.vatican/edocs/ENG0218/_PL.HTM (July 4,2008).

, Letter Dominicae cenae, February 24, 1980, in AAS, 72 (1980), pp. 113-148; English translation in Origins, 9 (1979-1980), pp. 653-666.

___, Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, November 22, 1981, in AAS, 74 (1981), pp. 81-191; English translation in Origins, 11 (1981-1982), pp. 437-466. 332

, Ad limina address, September 9, 1983, in AAS, 76 (1984), pp. 106-110.

, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia, December 2, 1984, in AAS , 77 (1985), pp. 185-275; English translation in Origins, 14 (1984- 1985), pp. 432-455.

, Apostolic Constitution Sacrae disciplinae leges, January 25, 1983, in AAS, 75 (1983), Pars. U; English translation in E. CAPARROS et al. (eds.), Code of Canon Law Annotated, 2nd ed. rev., Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2004, pp. 3-11.

, Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus, June 28,1988, inAAS, 80 (1988), pp. 841- 934; English translation in Annotated Code, pp. 1431-1551.

, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei afflicta, July 2,1988, in AAS, 80 (1988), pp. 1495- 1498; English translation in Origins, 18 (1988-1989), pp. 149-152.

, Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laid, December 30, 1988, in AAS, 81 (1989), pp. 393-521; English translation in Origins, 18 (1988-1989), pp. 561-595.

, Letter to Bishops of the United States," March 19,1989, in AAS, 81 (1989), pp. 1048-1050.

, Apostolic Letter Vicesimus quintus annus, December 4,1988, in AAS, 81 (1989), pp. 897-918; English translation in Origins, 19 (1989-1990), pp. 17-25.

, Ad limina address, May 28, 1993, in AAS, 86 (1994), pp. 329-335.

, Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente, November 10, 1994, in AAS, 97 (1995), pp. 5-41; English translation in Origins, 24 (1994-1995), pp. 401-416.

, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, May 25, 1995, in AAS, 87 (1995), pp. 921-982; English translation in Origins, 25 (1995-1996), pp. 49, 51-72.

\ Apostolic Letter Motu proprio Apostolos suos, On the Theological and Juridical Nature of Episcopal Conferences, May 21, 1998, in AAS, 90 (1998), pp. 641-658; English translation in Origins, 28 (1998-1999), pp. 152-158.

, Ad limina Address to American Bishops of the Northwestern Region, October 9,1998, in AAS, 91 (1999), pp. 351-356.

, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, April 30,2001, in AAS, 93 (2001), pp. 737-739; English translation in W.H. WOESTMAN, 333

Ecclesiastical Sanctions and the Penal Process: A Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 2nd rev. and updated, Ottawa, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 2003, pp. 300-308.

, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio Misericordia Dei, 7 April, 2002, in AAS, 94 (2002), pp. 452-459; English translation: Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 2002.

, Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17,2003, in AAS, 95 (2003), pp. 433-475; English translation in Eucharistic Documents, pp. 1-46.

, Apostolic Letter Spiritus et sponsa, December 4, 2003, in AAS, 96 (2004), pp. 419-427; English translation in Origins, 33 (2003-2004), p. 541, pp. 543-546.

MARTINEZ SOMALO, CARDINAL EDUARDO, Address to Metropolitan Archbishops of the United States, Liturgy and the Sacraments, With Particular Emphasis Upon the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in Origins, 18 (1988-1989), pp. 693-695.

Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, ed. typica altera, Vatican City, Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 1975; English translation, The Roman Missal, revised by decree of the Second Vatican Council and published by the authority of Pope Paul VI, Sacramentary, Ottawa, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1983.

Missale Romanum, ex decreto sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VIpromulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP., curarecognitum, ed. typica tertia, Vatican City, Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 2002; English translation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (third typical edition) by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc., 2002, and published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2003.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, "Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons with Disabilities," June 16, 1995, in Origins, 25 (1995- 1996), pp. 105,107-110.

PAUL VI, Address Tempus iam advenit, December 4, 1963, in AAS, 56 (1964), pp. 31-40; English translation in The Pope Speaks, 9 (1963-64), pp. 224-225.

, Motu proprio Sacram liturgiam, January 25, 1964, in AAS, 56 (1964), pp. 139- 144; English translation in DOL, nn. 276-289, pp. 84-87.

, Concession Attentis multarum, November 21, 1964, in AAS, 57 (1965), p. 186; English translation in DOL, no. 2117, p. 668. 334

._, Address, March 17, 1965, in L'Osservatore Romano, March 18, 1965; English translation in DOL, pp. 114-115.

, Encyclical Letter Mysterium fidei, September 3, 1965, in AAS, 57 (1965), pp. 753-774; English translation in DOL, nn. 1145-1220, pp. 378-392.

, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem, June 18, 1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 697-704; English translation in DOL, nn. 2533-2546, pp. 780- 783.

, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3,1969, in AAS, 61 (1969), pp. 217-222; English translation in DOL, nn. 1357-1366, pp. 458-461.

, Address, April 28, 1969, in AAS, 61 (1969), pp. 425-432; English translation of excerpts in DOL, nn. 675-677, p. 238.

, Address, August 20,1969, mNotitiae, 5 (1969), pp. 339-342; English translation in DOL, nn. 492-493, p. 150.

, Address, September 3, 1969, in Notitiae, 5 (1969), pp. 342-345; English translation in DOL, nn. 494-495, pp. 151-152.

_, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio Ministeria quaedam, August 15,1972, in AAS, 64 (1972), pp. 529-534; English translation in DOL, nn. 2922-2938, pp. 908-911.

PiUS V, Bull Quo primum, July 14, 1570, Bullarium Romanum 7:839-841; English translation: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stp32001.htm, March 3, 2008.

PiUS X, Motu proprio, Tra le sollecitudini, November 22, 1903, in Acta Sanctae Sedis, 36 (1903-1904), pp. 329-339; English translation: www. adoremus.org/ TraLa Sollecitudini.html (July 5, 2007).

. Apostolic Constitution Sapienti consilio, June 29,1908, in AAS, 1 (1909), pp. 7- 58.

, Apostolic Constitution Divino ajflatu, November 1,1911, in AAS, 3 (1911), pp. 633-638; English translation: http://sanctaliturgia.blogspot.com/2005/ll/divino- afflatu-english.html (January 30, 2008).

PlUSXJJ, Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei, November 20,1947, in AAS, 39 (1947), pp. 521- 604; English translation in ST. PAUL EDITIONS, The Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XII on the Sacred Liturgy Mediator Dei, Boston, Daughters of St. Paul. 335

PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR THE AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW, Response to dubium, July 11, 1984, in AAS, 76 (1984), p. 746; English translation in Annotated Code, p. 1629.

, Response to dubium, June 20, 1987, in AAS, 79 (1987), p. 1249; English translation in Annotated Code, p. 1627.

, Response to dubium, June 1, 1988, in AAS, 80 (1988), p. 1373; English translation in Annotated Code, p. 1627.

PONTIFICAL COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL EUCHARISTIC CONGRESSES, Profile, http:// www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pont_committees/eucharist-congr/documents/rc-com. (June 9, 2008).

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, Response to dubium, July 11, 1992, in AAS, 86 (1994), p. 541; English translation in Annotated Code, p. 1621.

, Declaration on the Proper Interpretation of the second part of c. 1335, May 15, 1997, in AAS, 90 (1998), pp. 63-64; English translation in Origins, 27 (1997-1998), p. 64.

. Response to dubium, July 3,1999, in AAS, 91 (1999), p. 918; English translation in Annotated Code, p. 1633.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, Declaration on the Non-admission to Eucharistic Communion of the Divorced and Remarried, June 24, 2000, in Communcationes, 32 (2000), pp. 159-162; English translation in Origins, 30 (2000- 2001), pp. 174-175.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY, Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, La recherche del'unite, in AAS, 85 (1993), pp. 1039-1119; English translation in Origins, 23 (1993-1994), pp. 129, 131-160.

RATZINGER, CARDINAL JOSEPH, Letter to Cardinal McCarrick, "Statement of Principles: Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," July 9,2004, in Origins, 34 (2004-2005), pp. 133-134.

The Rites of the Catholic Church: as revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and Published by Authority of Pope Paul VI, Study Edition, New York, Pueblo Publishing Co, 1983. 336

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION, Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis, January 6,1970, in AAS, 62 (1970, pp. 321-384; English translation in The Pope Speaks, 15(1970), pp. 264-314.

, Instruction on Liturgical Formation in Seminaries In ecclesiasticamfuturorum, June 3, 1979, in Notitiae, 15 (1979), pp. 526-549; English translation in The Pope Speaks, 25 (1980), pp. 321-341.

, Circular Letter concerning some of the More Urgent Aspects of Spiritual Formation in Seminaries, January 6,1980, in Canon Law Digest, vol. 9, pp. 871-894.

SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE COUNCIL, Decree Sacra Tridentini Synodus, December 20, 1905, inActa Sanctae Sedis, 38 (1905-1906), pp. 400-406; English translation: http:// www.ewtn .com/library/CURIA/CDWFREQ.HTM (January 30, 2008).

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS , Instruction Fidei custos, April 30, 1969, unpublished; English translation in DOL, nn. 2043-2053, pp. 641- 643.

, Instruction Immensae caritatis, January 29, 1973, in AAS, 65 (1973), pp. 264- 271; English translation in DOL, nn. 2073-2088, pp. 650-654.

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Instruction Constitutione Apostolica, April 3,1969, in AAS, 61 (1969), pp. 749-753; English translation in DOL, nn. 1732-1752, pp. 534-537.

, Instruction Actio pastoralis, May 15, 1969, in AAS, 61 (1969), pp. 806-811; English translation in DOL, nn. 2120-2133, pp. 672-676.

, Instruction Memoriale Domini, May 29, 1969, in AAS, 61 (1969), pp. 541-545; English translation in DOL, nn. 2054-2061, pp. 643-646.

. Letter En reponse a la demande, May 29,1969, in AAS, 61 (1969), pp. 546-547; English translation in DOL, nn. 2062-2069, pp. 647-648.

, Declaration Institutio generalis Missalis romani, November 18,1969, in Notitiae, 5 (1969), pp. 417-18; English translation in DOL, nn. 1368-1370, pp. 204-205.

, Instruction Sacramentali Communione, June 29, 1970, in AAS, 62 (1970), pp. 664-667; English translation in DOL, nn. 2109-2115, pp. 664-665.

, Instruction Liturgicae instaurationes, September 5,1970, in AAS, 62 (1970), pp. 692-704; English translation in DOL, nn.509-531, pp. 159-167. 337

, Circular Letter Eucharistiae participationem, April 27, 1973, in Notitiae, 9 (1973), pp. 193-201; English translation in DOL, nn. 1975-1993, pp. 623-629.

, Decree Eucharistiae Sacramentum, June 21, 1973, in AAS, 65 (1973), p. 610; English translation of both the Decree and the Ritual in The Rites, pp. 469-532. Excerpts in Flannery, pp. 242-253.

, Directory for Masses with Children Pueros baptizatos, November 1, 1973, in AAS, 66 (1974), pp. 30-46; English translation in DOL, nn. 2134-2188, pp. 676-688.

, Notification to Conferences of Bishops on the Obligatory Nature of the Roman Missal of Paul VI, Conferentiarum Episcopalium, October 28, 1974, in Notitiae, 10 (1974), p. 353; English translation in DOL, no. 1784, p. 549.

SACRED CONGREGATIONFORTHEDOCTRINEOFTHEFAITH, Letter to All Bishops, Admission to the Sacraments of the Remarried, April 11, 1973; English text in Canon Law Digest, vol. 8, pp. 631-632.

SACRED CONGREGATION OF RITES, English translation in DOL, nn. 293-391, pp. 88-110.

, Decree Ecclesiae semper, March 7, 1965, in AAS, 57 (1965), pp. 410-412; English translation in DOL, nn. 1788-1793, pp. 554-556.

, Instruction on Music in the Liturgy Musicam sacram, March 5,1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 300-320; English translation in DOL, nn. 4122-4190, pp. 1293-1306.

, Instruction Tres abhinc annos, May 4, 1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 442-448; English translation in DOL, nn. 445-474, pp. 135-140.

. Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium, May 25,1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 539- 573; English translation in DOL, nn. 1230-1296, pp. 395-420.

, Decree Ordine Missae, April 6, 1969, in Notitiae, 5 (1969), p. 147; English translation in DOL, n. 1367, p. 461.

SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE SACRAMENTS, Decree Quam singulari, August 8,1910, in AAS, 2 (1910), pp. 577-583; English translation in DZ, nn. 2137-2144, pp. 548-549.

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium, December 4, 1963, in AAS, 56 (1964), pp. 97-133; English translation in Flannery, pp.1-36. 338

, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, November 21, 1964, in AAS, 57 (1965), pp. 5-71; English translation in Flannery, pp. 350-423.

, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio, November 21, 1964, in AAS, 57 (1965), pp. 90-112; English translation in Flannery, pp. 452-470.

, Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops Christus Dominus, October 28, 1965, in AAS, 58 (1966), pp. 673-696; English translation in Flannery, pp. 564-590.

, Decree on the Training of Priests Optatum totius, October 28, 1965, in AAS, 58 (1966), pp. 713-727; English translation in Flannery, pp. 707-724.

, Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity Ad gentes divinitus, December 7, 1965, in AAS, 58 (1966), pp. 947-990; English translation in Flannery, pp. 813-856.

, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests Presbyterorum ordinis, December 7, 1965, inAAS, 58 (1966), pp. 991-1024; English translation inFlannery, pp; 863-902.

SECRETARIAT FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY, Directory for Implementing the Decrees Promulgated by the Second Vatican Council on Ecumenism Ad totam Ecclesiam, May 14,1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), pp. 574-592; English translation in Flannery, pp. 483-501.

SECRETARIAT OF STATE, Letter of Cardinal J. Villot on the Obligatory Use of the Roman Missal, October 11, 1975, in Notitiae, 12 (1976), pp. 81-83; English translation in DOL, nn. 1785-1786, pp. 550-551.

, Rescript ex audientia Ss.mi, Regolamento generale della Curia romana, in AAS, 91 (1999), p. 680, art. 126, § 4; English translation in Exegetical Commentary, vol. 5, p. 233.

SlXTUS V, Bull Immensa aeterni Dei, February 11,1588, in Bullarium Romanum 8:985-999; English translation of excerpts: F. MCMANUS, The Congregation of Sacred Rites, Canon Law Studies, n. 352, Washington, The Catholic University of America Press, 1954.

SYNOD OF BISHOPS, Extraordinary Assembly, "Final Report," in Origins, 15 (1985-1986), pp. 444-450.

, Secretariat, Lineamenta in preparation for the Seventh General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, April 28, 1987, in Origins, 17 (1987-1988), pp. 1-19.

, Seventh General Assembly, "Message to the People of God," October 28,1987, in Origins, 17 (1987-1988), pp. 385-389. 339

UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America," in The Liturgy Documents, vol. 1, Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 2004, pp. 500-512.

, Guidelines for Holy Communion, in Origins, 16 (1986-1987), p. 554.

, Office of Media Relations, "New Vatican Instruction on the Eucharist to be published by USCCB Publishing," at www.usccb.org/comrti/archives/2004/04- Q73.shtml (March 6, 2008).

. Committee on Divine Worship, Preparation of Chalices for Holy Communion Under Both Kinds, http://wwww.usccb.org/liturgy/Q&a/chalice.shtml (March 3, 2008).

Books

ADAM, A., Foundations of Liturgy: An Introduction to Its History and Practice, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1992.

ALBERIGO, G. et al., Reception of Vatican II, Washington, Catholic University of America Press, 1987.

AMIOT, F., The History of the Mass, translated from the French by L. C. Shepherd, New York, Hawthorn Books, 1959.

The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.F. Marique, S.J., and Gerald G. Walsh, S.J., New York, CMA Publishing, 1947.

AQUILINA, M., The Mass of the Early Christians, Huntington, IN, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2001.

The Assisi Papers: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Assisi-Rome, September 18-22,1956, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1957.

ATTRIDGE, H. (ed.), The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary by P. BRADSHAW, M. JOHNSON, and L. PHILLIPS, Minneapolis, WI, Fortress Press, 2002.

BARRY, J. A., Ecclesial Norms for Priestly Formation, Ottawa, Saint Paul University, 1982. 340

BEAL, J., J.A. CORIDEN, and T.J. GREEN (eds.), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, New York/Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 2000.

BERGANT, D. and R.J. KARRIS (eds.), The Collegeville Bible Commentary: The New Testament, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1992.

BRAGA, C, La riforma liturgica di Pio XII: documenti, Rome, CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, 2003.

BUGNINI, A., The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975, translated by M. J. O'CONNELL, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1990.

CABROL, F., The Mass of the Western Rites, London, Sands & Co., 1934.

CANADIAN CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, Liturgical Renewal: Documents Issued by the Holy See and the Canadian Episcopate 1963-1964, Hull, Gauvin Press Limited.

CHIRON, Y., Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church, translated by G. Harrison, Kansas City, MI, Angelus Press, 2002.

CORIDEN, J., T.J. GREEN, and D.E. HEINTSCHEL (eds.), The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, New York, Paulist Press, 1985.

, The Canonical Doctrine of Reception, Delran, NJ, The Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, 1997.

DlX, G., The Shape of the Liturgy, new edition, London, Continuum, 2005.

DUFFY, E., The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2005.

FAGOTHEY, A., Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice Based on the Teachings of Aristotle and St. Thomas, 2nd ed., St. Louis, The C.V. Mosby Company, 1959; reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, IL, 2002.

The Fathers of the Church: Writings of Saint Justin Martyr, Washington, Catholic University of America Press, 1948.

FINK, P. (ed.), The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1990.

FlNNEGAN, C, Priest's Manual for the Forty Hours Devotion: History, Law and Indulgences, Ceremonies, Prayers, Paterson, NJ, St. Anthony Guild Press, 1958. 341

FLANNERY, A. (gen. ed.), The Vatican Collection: Vatican Council II: vol. 1, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, new rev. ed., Northport, NY, Costello Publishing Company, Inc., 1996.

FOLEY, E., N.D. MITCHELL, and J.M. PIERCE (eds.), A Commentary on the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 2007.

FORTESCUE, A., The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1912.

GY, P.M., The Reception of Vatican IT. Liturgical Reforms in the Life of the Church, Milwaukee, WI, Marquette University Press, 2003.

HUELS, J., Liturgy and Law: Liturgical Law in the System of Roman Catholic Canon Law, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur Lt6e, 2006.

, The Pastoral Companion: A Canon Law Handbook for Catholic Ministry, 3rd ed. revised and updated, Quincy, EL, Franciscan Press, 2003.

Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The First and Second Letters of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2004.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ENGLISH IN THE LITURGY, Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (=DOL), Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1982.

KERESTZTY, R., Wedding Feast of the Lamb: Eucharistic Theology from a Historical, Biblical and Systematic Perspective, Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications and the Liturgical Institute of Saint Mary of the Lake, 2004.

KILMARTIN, E., The Eucharist in the Primitive C&wrc/i, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall Inc., 1965.

KING, A., Notes oh the Catholic Liturgies, London, Longmans, Green and Co, 1930.

, Liturgy of the Roman Church, London, Longmans, Green, 1957.

, Liturgies of the Primatial Sees, Bonn, Verlag nova & vetera, 2005.

, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, Bonn, Verlag nova & vetera, 2005.

KLAUSER, T., A Short History of the Western Liturgy, translated by J. HALLIBURTON, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1979. 342

LAVERDIERE, E., The Eucharist in the New Testament and the Early Church, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1996.

The Liturgy Documents, vol. 1: A Parish Resource, 4th ed., Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 2004.

The Liturgy Documents, vol. 2: A Parish Resource, With Commentary and Cumulative Index, Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 1999.

McBRlEN, R. (ed.), The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, New York, Harper Collins, 1995.

McMANUS, F., The Congregation of Sacred Rites, Canon Law Studies, no. 352, Washington, The Catholic University of America Press, 1954.

MARTIMORT, A.G. (ed.), The Church at Prayer: Introduction to the Liturgy, Shannon, Irish University Press, 1968.

nd MARTIN DE AGAR, J.T., A Handbook on Canon Law, 2 ed., Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2007.

MARZOA, A., J. MlRAS, R. RODRIGUEZ-OCANA (eds.), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (=Exegetical Commentary), Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2004.

MAZZA, E., The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite, translated by M. J. O'CONNELL, New York, Pueblo Publishing Co., 1986.

MORRISEY, Y., Papal and Curial Pronouncements: Their Canonical Significance in Light of the Code of Canon Law, Ottawa, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 1995.

The Narrative of the Eucharistic Congress, Montreal, The Montreal Tribune, 1910.

NICHOLS, A., The Holy Eucharist: From the New Testament to Pope John Paul II, Dublin, Veritas, 1991.

O'CONNELL, J., The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal, Milwaukee, WI, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1944.

PALAZZO, E., A History of Liturgical Books from the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century, translated by M. BEAUMONT, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1998.

PEARSON, J., The Reservation and Veneration of the Blessed Sacrament, Ottawa, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, 1986. 343

PHAN, P. (ed.), Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines, A Commentary, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 2005.

The Rationale Divinorum Officiorum: The Foundational Symbolism of the Early Church, Its Structure, Decoration, Sacraments and Vestments, Books I, III, and TV, by Guilielmus Durandus (1230-1296 CE), Louisville, KY, Fons Vitae, 2007.

RATZINGER, J., The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy, translated by Graham Harrison, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1986.

, The Spirit of the Liturgy, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2000.

, God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2003.

REID, A., The Organic Development of the Liturgy, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2005.

RiCHSTATTER, T., Liturgical Law: New Style, New Spirit, Chicago, Franciscan Herald Press, 1977.

RUBIN, M., Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture, Cambridge, University Press, 1997.

RYAN, J.B., The Eucharistic Prayer: A Study in Contemporary Liturgy, New York, Paulist Press, 1974.

St. Justin Martyr: The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, the Monarchy or the Rule of God, translated by T.B. FALLS, Washington, Catholic University of America Press, 1948.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: First Complete American Edition in Three Volumes, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, New York, Benziger Brothers Inc., 1947.

SCHMITZ, H., Die Liturgie-Instruktion Redemptionis Sacramentum von 2004: kirchenrechtliche Anmerkungen zum Erlafi der Kongregationfiir Gottesdientst und die Sakramentenordnung vom 25. Mdrz 2004, Adnotationes in Ius Canonicum, no. 36, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 2005.

SEASOLTZ, R.K., The New Liturgy: A Documentation 1903-1965, New York, Herder and Herder, 1966.

, New Liturgy, New Laws, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1980. 344

SHEEHY, G. et al. (eds), The Canon Law: Letter and Spirit, Dublin, Veritas, 1995.

SOLTNER, L., Solesmes and Dom Gueranger 1805-1875: Scholar, Priest and Monk, translated by J. O'CONNOR, Orleans, MA, Paraclete Press, 1995.

TAFT, R., Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding, Washington, The Pastoral Press, 1984.

TANNER, N.P. (ed), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V. Original text by G. Alberigo et al. (eds.), Washington, Georgetown University Press, 1990.

THE VENERABLE BEDE, A History of the English Church and People, Harmondsworth, Penguin Press, 1983.

VOGEL, C, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, Washington, Pastoral Press, 1986.

WOESTMAN, W., Ecclesiastical Sanctions and the Penal Process: A Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 2nd ed. rev. and updated, Ottawa, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 2003.

, Sacraments: Initiation, Penance, Anointing of the Sick: Commentary on Canons 840-1007, 3rd ed. revised and updated, Ottawa, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 2004.

Articles

AMATO, ARCHBISHOP ANGELO, "Intervention," April 23, 2004, in Notitiae, 40 (2004), pp. 122-126.

ARINZE, CARDINAL FRANCIS, "Presentation of the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum," April 23,2004 mNotitiae 40 (2004), pp. 111-116; English translation: www.vatican. va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/ rc_con_ccdds_doc_2, (May 31, 2004).

, Address "Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal and Related Liturgical Issues," October 11, 2003, mNotitiae, 40 (2004), pp. 15-28.

, "Commentaries on Redemptionis Sacramentum," six compact discs produced by The Apostolate for Family Consecration, Bloomingdale, OH. 345

ARRIETA, J., "Title VIII: Power of Governance, Commentary," in Annotated Code, pp. 111- 125.

BAMBERG, A., "Celiac Disease and Eucharistic Communion," in The Jurist, 61 (2001), pp. 281-289.

BEAL, J., "The Exercise of the Power of Governance by Lay People: State of the Question," in The Jurist, 55 (1995), pp. 1-92.

BISHOP, E., "The Genius of the Roman Rite," in Liturgical Historical Papers on the Liturgy and Religious Life of the Western Church, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1918.

BURKE, ARCHBISHOP RAYMOND, "Instruction Redemptions Sacramentum," excerpts of Commentary in the Diocesan Newspaper The St. Louis Review in 2005 and reprinted in Notitiae, 43 (2007)', pp. 442-448 and pp. 556-576.

CABANA, M.V. (ed.), "Vivante Eucharistie," in La documentation catholique, 101 (2004), p. 451.

CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, "Commentary on the Instruction Inaestimabile donum," in National Bulletin on Liturgy, 13 (1980), pp. 218-236.

ClAURRiz, M.J., "Title HI: General Decrees and Instructions, Introduction," in Exegetical Commentary, pp. 437-438.

CONNELL, M. and S. MCMILLAN, "The Different Forms of Celebrating Mass," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 224-278.

CORDIER, H., art. "China," in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3, New York, The Encyclopedia Press, 1913, pp. 671-672.

DIEDERICH, E., art. "Eucharistic Worship outside Mass," in New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1990, pp. 459-462.

DOYLE, T., "Sacramental Law in the New Code," in The Priest, 40 (November 1984), pp. 34- 38; and 40 (December 1984), pp. 27-32.

ERDO, CARDINAL PETER., "Commentary on Title m, The Blessed Eucharist," in Exegetical Commentary, pp. 562-604.

FOLEY, E., "The Structure of the Mass, Its Elements and Its Parts," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 113-197. 346

FOLLONIER, R.J., "Aspectos canonicos de la instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum," in Apollinaris, 78 (2005), pp. 737-763.

FORTESCUE, A., art. "Liturgy," in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9, New York, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., 1913, pp. 306-312.

FOSTER, J.M., The Nature and Use of the Recognitio of the Apostolic See with a Consideration of Select Normative Decisions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, The Catholic University of America, 2007.

FRANCIS, M. and G. NEVILLE, "Adaptations within the Competence of Bishops and Bishops' Conferences," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 447-467.

FRANZ, H., art. "Joseph II," in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 8, New York, The Encyclopedia Press, 1913, pp. 509-510.

GRAMUNT, I., "Non-Admission to Holy Communion: The Interpretation of Canon 915," in Studia Canonica, 35 (2001), pp. 175-190.

GREEN, T. J., "The Church's Sanctifying Mission: Some Aspects of the Normative Role of the Diocesan Bishop," in Studia Canonica, 25 (1991), pp. 245-276.

GRIBBIN, J.A., "Lay Participation in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Later Middle Ages," in Ministerial and Common Priesthood in the Eucharistic Celebration: The Proceedings of the Fourth International Colloquium, CIEL, UK, London, Saint Austin Press, 1999.

HENRY, E., "Dom Gueranger and the Restoration of the Roman Rite in France," in Theological and Historical Aspects of the Roman Missal: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium of Historical, Canonical and Theological Studies on the Roman Catholic Liturgy, published by CIEL, UK, 2000, pp. 75-100.

HUELS, J., "Dispensation from Liturgical Laws," in CLSA Advisory Opinions: 1984-1993, vol. 1, Washington, Canon Law Society of America, 1995 [= CLSA Advisory Opinions I\, pp. 1-2.

, "Restrictions on Concelebration," in CLSA Advisory Opinions I, pp. 275-277'.

, "The Place of Eucharistic Reservation," in CLSA Advisory Opinions I, pp. 288- 290.

, "Prohibition of a Blessed Sacrament Chapel," in CLSA Advisory Opinions I, pp. 290-292. 347

, "Eucharistic Ministers in the Presence of Ordained Ministers," in CLSA Advisory Opinions: 1994-2000, vol. 2 [= CLSA Advisory Opinions II], pp. 59-61.

, "Interpreting an Instruction Approved in forma specified," in Studia canonica, 32 (1998), pp. 5-46.

, "Sacramental Penance during the Eucharist," in CLSA Advisory Opinions II, Washington, Catholic University of America, 2002, pp. 288-289.

, "A Theory of Juridical Documents Based on Canons 29-34," in Studia Canonica, 32 (1998), pp. 334-370.

, "Assessing the Weight of Documents on the Liturgy," in Worship, 74 (2000), pp. 117-135.

, "The Power of Governance and Its Exercise by Lay Persons: A Juridical Approach," in Studia Canonica, 35 (2001), pp. 59-96.

, "Canonical Observations onRedemptionis Sacramentum," in Worship, 78 (2004), pp. 404-420.

, "Constitutive Law and Juridic Institutes," in lus Ecclesiae, 16 (2004), pp. 711- 739.

, "Effective Date of Revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal," in CLSA Advisory Opinions: 2001-2005, vol. 3, pp. 3-6.

, "New Eucharistic Discipline in the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum and the Need for a Reform of Canons 29-34," in Studies in Church Law, 2 (2006), pp. 33- 59.

IRWIN, K., "The Revised Institutio generalis Missalis romani: Issues in Liturgical Theology and American Pastoral Implementation," in The Jurist, 48 (1988), pp. 233-255.

JOHNSON, C, "Prosper Gueranger (1805-1875), A Liturgical Theologian: An Introduction to His Liturgical Writings and Work," in Studia Anselmiana, no. 89, Rome, Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1984.

JUNGMANN, J., "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy," in H. VORGRIMLER (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, translated by L. Adolphus, K. Smyth and R. Strachan, Freiburg, Herder and Herder, 1967. 348

KASLYN, K., "Canons 913-914: Reception of Eucharist by Alzheimer's Patient," in CLSA Advisory Opinions II, pp. 270-272.

LE GALL, R., "Serviteurs de la sainte Liturgie: Presentation de l'lnstruction Redemptionis Sacramentum," in La Documentation catholique, 101 (2004), pp. 491-492.

LODA, N., L'Eucharistia sacramento della redenzione e l'istruzione Redemptionis Sacramentum (su alcune cose che si devono osservare ed evitare circa la Santissima Eucharistia)," in Appollinaris, 78 (2005), pp. 329-373.

McGrath, A., "Communicatio in sacris: An Effort to Express the Unity of Christians or Simply an Exercise in Politeness," in CLSA Proceedings, 63 (2001), pp. 173-214.

McMANUS, F., "The Church at Prayer: Going Beyond Rubrics to the Heart of the Church's Worship," in The Jurist, 53 (1993), pp. 263-283.

. art. "The Liturgical Reform of Vatican II," in The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1992, pp. 1082-1083.

MAHONEY, CARDINAL ROGER, "The Implementation of Redemptionis Sacramentum," September 4, 2004, http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/0910/liturgy_text.htm (April 2, 2008)

MALDONADO, L., "Liturgy as Communal Enterprise," in G. ALBERIGO et al., The Reception of Vatican II, pp. 309-323.

MARTIN DE AGAR, J.T., "Commentary on Part I, The Sacraments," in Exegetical Commentary, pp. 395-426.

MARZOA, A., "Commentary on Title III, The Blessed Eucharist," in Annotated Code, pp. 695- 735.

MITCHELL N. and J. BALDOVIN, "Institutio generalis Missalis romani and the Class of Liturgical Documents to Which It Belongs," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 1-27.

MOODIE, M., "Title m: General Decrees and Instructions [cc. 29-34]," in New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pp. 97-100.

MORRILL, B. and S. ROLL, "The Duties and Ministries in the Mass," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 199-223.

MORRISEY, F., "Denial of Access to the Sacraments," in CLSA Proceedings of the Fifty- second Annual Convention (1990), pp. 170-186. 349

OLIVER, R., "SST: Overview and Implementation of the Norms Concerning 'More Grave Delicts' Reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith," in CLSA Proceedings of the Sixty-fifth Annual Convention (2004), pp. 151-172.

PECKLERS, K.E., "Importance and Dignity of the Eucharistic Celebration," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 99-112.

PETERS, E., "Reception of Holy Communion by One Unable to Swallow," in Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions 2007, pp. 54-57.

POMMARES, J.M. "The Origins of the Roman Missal in the Liturgical Work of Pope St. Pius V," in Theological and Historical Aspects of the Roman Missal: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium of Historical, Canonical and Theological Studies on the Roman Catholic Liturgy, Surrey, CIEL UK, 2000, pp. 165-179.

POWER, D., and ViNClE, C, "Theological and Pastoral Reflections," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 46-72.

QuiNLAN, M., "Parental Rights and Admission of Children to the Sacraments of Initiation," in Studia Canonica, 25 (1991), pp. 385-401.

SCHAFFER, M. and J. PIERCE, "Some General Norms for All Forms of Mass," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 325-350.

SEASOLTZ, R.K., "Liturgy and Ecclesiastical Law," in GIRM Commentary, pp. 28-45.

SORRENTINO, ARCHBISHOP DOMENICO, "Intervention," April 23,2004, in Notitiae, 40 (2004), pp. 117-121, at p. 117; English translation: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ congregationis/ ccdds/ documents/ rc_con_2 (May 10, 2008).

SULLIVAN, W., "The Sacraments, Canon Law and the Rights of Disabled Persons," in America, 154 (1986), pp. 321-324.

TEJERO, E., "Introduction to Book IV," in Exegetical Commentary, pp. 344-358.

THIBODEAU, T.M., "From Durand of Mende to St. Thomas More: Lessons Learned from Medieval Liturgy," in Ritual, Text and Law: Studies in Medieval Canon Law and Liturgy Presented to Roger E. Reynolds, Burlington, Ashgate, 2004. Biographical Note

A priest of the Archdiocese of St. John's, Newfoundland. After having graduated from Memorial University in St. John's with a Bachelor of Arts, he completed his studies for the priesthood at St. Augustine's Seminary in Toronto with a Masters in Divinity and was ordained in 1984.

While serving in different pastoral assignments in the Archdiocese of St. John's, he attended the Sheptytsky Institute for four summers as well as summer sessions at St. Michael's College, Winooski, Vermont, where he obtained a Master of Arts in Theology. In 1999, Archbishop James MacDonald asked him to study Canon Law, and he received the Licentiate in Canon Law from Saint Paul University in 2001. With the permission of Archbishop Brendan O'Brien, he was admitted to the doctoral degree programme in canon law at the same University.

In 2005, he was appointed to the staff of the Apostolic Nunciature in Ottawa as English Secretary.