Any deviation from the rule of prayer diminishes
the legacy of unity which Christ on the eve
of his death asked his Father to bestow on the Church.

Who says,
"Jesus won't mind"?

By Clarence J. Hettinger

n 1. The setting was "on the night he was handed over" (1 Cor. 11:231), after our Lord had just offered and instituted the Sacrifice of the Most Holy Eucharist and instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders. In this emotionally charged atmosphere, he offered his Priestly Prayer for Unity to his heavenly Father: "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me" (John 17:21-23).

In the living Tradition of the Church, the most recent witness to which is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, these verses as a whole are authentically interpreted to mean that "the ultimate end of the whole divine economy is the entry of God's creatures into the perfect unity of the Blessed Trinity" (260). Later, with a reference to Heb. 7:25, the Catechism gives a commentary on the first verse: "Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion and does not cease praying to his Father for the unity of his disciples" ( 820). The Catechism also tells us, "The Church is a 'communion of saints': this expression refers first to the 'holy things' ("sancta"), above all the Eucharist, by which 'the unity of believers, who form one body in Christ, is both represented and brought about' (LG 3)" (960). One would think, then, that wherever this unity is in any way threatened the Risen and Ascended Lord must "mind." If this were not so, what explanation can be given for the fact that he has not and will not quit praying for unity?

St. Paul, who had personally "received from the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:23) the doctrine of the Eucharist, surely knew the mind of Christ (cf. RSVCE Phil. 2:5). He was particularly distressed by "division in the body" (1 Cor. 12:25). He knew well that the Eucharist is the cause of the unity so dear to the Sacred Heart of Jesus: "Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf" (1 Cor. 10:17). In a more formal way, the Catechism states that our Lord established the Eucharist "as the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being" (1325). This partaking is called "Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body" (1331).

The first record of the famous axiom, lex orandi, lex credendi, is in the Capitula pseudo-Clementina (ca. 431 A.D.). Although falsely attributed to St. Pope Celestine I, this document is a witness of Tradition. The importance of the document for our theme is its testimony, not only to universal liturgical uniformity, but precisely its testimony to the causal relationship of liturgical uniformity to the unity of the Catholic faith: ". . . let us be mindful also of the sacramenta of sacerdotal supplications which, having been handed down from the Apostles, are uniformly celebrated in the whole world and in every Catholic Church with result that the rule of prayer establishes the rule of faith" (Denzinger-Schönmetzer 246). This axiom, then, establishes the liturgy as a source of theological science (cf. footnotes attached to DS 246).

To summarize these data from the Word of God: The unity of The Twelve had already been broken by Judas but Christ's prayer for unity, like all of his prayers, had then and will always have its indefectible answer. Thus, while ecclesial unity exists, the Church must constantly work for its perfection. The Eucharist is the cause of ecclesial unity. Unity is the cause of the Church's very existence and a motive of credibility for Christ's mission. That St. Paul's instant solicitude to eliminate abuses contrary to unity in the celebration of the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor. 11:17-34) has been a fundamental liturgical principle since the beginning is not at all surprising in light of the tremendous values of unity.

Ever since St. Paul's time, the Church has experienced "division in the body" and she has been living with a massive division for more than four centuries. Sharing the sentiments of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, she exclaims, "The more painful the experience of the divisions in the Church which break the common participation in the table of the Lord, the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time of complete unity among all who believe in him may return" (Catechism 1398). The Church, however, does not simply pray for ecclesial unity and hence for a unified celebration of the Eucharist; she also fulfills her office as the guardian of the sacraments (cf. Catechism 1205) and, in a most special way, the Eucharist, the sign and cause of communion in the divine life.

The Roman Missal

In modern times, the first outstanding example of the Church's fulfillment of this office was St. Pius V's gift in 1570 of the first edition of the Roman Missal, which had been ordered by the Council of Trent. Now, if the treasure to be guarded was an inaestimabile donum, an unappraisable gift, its values were so awesome as to be inviolable. Hence, the Saint demanded absolute unity in the administration of this treasure. If his presentation started on a persuasive tone: "it is most fitting to have one way of praying the breviary, one rite for the celebration of Mass," it quickly took on a note of urgent imperativeness. The purpose of the new Missal was "that priests may understand what prayers to use, what rites and what ceremonies they must henceforth observe in the celebration of Mass . . . . Nothing is ever to be added to, removed from, or changed in this recently published Missal . . . . They may not presume to add or recite other ceremonies or prayers than those which are contained in this Missal" (private translation).

This sounds quite monolithic but the new missal experienced several notable changes-the first after thirty-four years-which culminated in the revision authorized by Pope John XXIII in 1960. John XXIII's missal, however, did not enjoy currency for very long. It did not get to the printer until 1962 and already in 1963 Vatican II decided that there should be a thorough revision of the liturgical books, allowing "legitimate variations and adaptations" while "preserving the substantial unity of the Roman Rite" (Const. on the Liturgy 38). As if the Council was anticipating abuses in the name of aggiornamento, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy decreed, "Absolutely no one else, even if he is a priest, may on his own initiative [proprio Marte] add, take away, or change anything in the liturgy" (ibid. 21, 3). As strong as Vatican II's command sounds in this private translation, the translation still does not reflect the full strength of the phrase proprio Marte. In a Christian and conciliar document, taking the name of a pagan war-god in vain has to be an unusual way to make a point. In liturgical matters, however, whatever may seem to be praeter legem is contra legem. This may seem too simplistic to some but, as shall be seen shortly, Pope Paul VI placed "the legitimate variations and adaptations" under the protection of a liturgical uniformity as monolithic as that of St. Pius V.2

Although Paul VI was generally enthusiastic about the benefits of liturgical reform, he could only remain faithful to the Tradition of lex orandi, lex credendi. After making the liturgy our top pastoral priority, he confirmed the strictness of liturgical uniformity when he announced the promulgation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on December 4, 1963. In his address to the Fathers of Vatican Council II at the end of the third session, he said,

. . . If we now reduce some forms of worship to a simpler style, . . . it certainly is not our plan that the importance of prayer should be given lesser weight or that it be subordinated to the other activities and responsibilities of the pastoral office or that anything should be taken away from its most highly expressive power and the ancient elegance of its art . . . .

In order that this may take place successfully, we will that no rule of the Church's public prayer be thwarted by the introduction of private changes or novel rites; we will that no one take to himself the power to apply according to his own choice the Constitution which we promulgate today . . . . May, then, this magnificent prayer of the Church resound in harmonious melody throughout the whole world; let no one disturb it, let no one violate it.3

On January 25, 1964, Paul VI officially "launched the reform" with his motu proprio Sacram liturgiam, putting into effect some prescriptions of the Constitution on the Liturgy on February 16, 1964. He established a special Consilium in the Congregation of Rites "with the principal task of seeing that the prescriptions of the Constitution are put into effect" (DOL 278). He closed his motu proprio with a warning, to be repeated frequently throughout "the reform": "Finally, we want it understood that . . . regulation of the liturgy depends exclusively on the authority of the Church, i.e., the Holy See, and of the bishop in accordance with the law; therefore, no other person, not even a priest, may add, take away, or change anything in matters of liturgy" (DOL 289).

In the nature of things, this stricture applies also to vernacular versions because in the practical order they now are the most visible evidences of the rule of prayer. Not surprisingly, then, Paul VI, who could not have not known the Italian proverb, "translator, traitor," said in his address to translators on November 10, 1965, "You must be convinced that there are not as many liturgies as there are languages used by the Church in the sacred rites; the voice of the Church remains one and the same in celebrating the divine mysteries, although that voice speaks in a variety of tongues" (DOL 786). In closing this address, he implicitly told translators about the delicacy of their task since all Church laws bind in conscience and liturgical laws-therefore translations also-bind with the most serious obligation:

. . . liturgical texts, approved by competent authority and confirmed by the Holy See, are as such to be held in all reverence. No one has the right to change, shorten, amplify, or omit them to suit himself. The Church in liturgical matters shows herself to be a kind and generous mother so that her children may take part in the liturgy "actively, consciously, and with devotion"; nevertheless, those matters that have been lawfully established have the force of ecclesiastical laws that all must obey in conscience. This is all the more the case when the laws at issue regulate the most sacred of all actions (DOL 790).

Four years were to pass before Paul VI published the new Roman Missal on April 11, 1969. He wrote, in a translation which is deliberately quite literal in an effort to convey the nuances of the Latin:

When our predecessor Saint Pius V promulgated the first edition of the Roman Missal, he presented it to the Christian people precisely as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a reminder of genuine and religious worship in the Church. Not in any way otherwise-even if by command of Vatican Council II we have admitted "legitimate variations and adaptations" into the new Missal-we are, however, none the less confident that this [Missal] itself will be received as a support for witnessing to and confirming the mutual unity of all as being that through whose power, in so great a variety of tongues, one and the same prayer, more fragrant than any incense, may ascend to the heavenly Father, through the High Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

Sternly urged adherence

Over the years while these and other calls for liturgical uniformity were being issued, the grassroots response in many places was positively negative. Paging through a source-book like ICEL's Documents on the Liturgy discloses something of the magnitude of the unauthorized and wrong-headed liturgical experimentation that must have been taking place from Vatican II's announcement of liturgical updating through the pre-Novus Ordo era and later. It must be highly significant that-less than two months after the Pope promulgated the Novus Ordo missal and precisely in a document regulating variations and adaptations-the Directory (Instruction) on Masses with Special Groups closed with these stinging words:

In these days there are those who think themselves to be renewed because of their display of sometimes mindless novelties or their concoction of arbitrary styles of liturgical celebration. But priests, diocesan and regular, truly concerned about the welfare of the faithful, know full well that the way of a lasting and sanctifying pastoral activity is to be found in steadfast and magnanimous loyalty to the will of the Church as expressed in its precepts, norms, and structures. Anything that departs from this pattern, even if it has a specious attractiveness, is in fact spiritually upsetting to the faithful and makes the ministry of priests lifeless and sterile (DOL 2133).

That last sentence should make us shudder with horror and Paul VI on June 27, 1977, two years after the first revision of the new Roman Missal, confirmed this "negativity" in unusually solemn and harsh words in an address to a consistory. Invoking the rule of prayer, he stressed that disunity in liturgical celebrations has a disastrous effect on the Church's doctrines and life, which must be preeminently true of the celebration of the Mass. He said,

We sternly urge adherence to the established norms by those who raise an uproar or a challenge in the name of a misunderstood creative freedom, and thus inflict so much harm on the Church with their rash innovations, so vulgar, so frivolous-and sometimes even lamentably profane. Otherwise the essence of dogma and obviously of ecclesiastical discipline will be weakened, in line with the famous axiom, lex orandi, lex credendi. We therefore call for absolute loyalty so that the rule of faith may remain safe (DOL 578).

Striking departures

Given the tremendously high value of unity in the celebration of the Eucharist in the mind of Christ and of his Church, one would think that every Christian who is truly and fully Catholic would want the celebration of the Mass to conform to the rubrics and the general instruction of the Roman Missal. Striking examples of the opposite tendency, which illustrate several points we have been making, are found even in "the three principal parts of the Mass." They are striking because, where the Mystery of Faith should be most clearly expressed, one should expect the closest adherence to the rule of prayer.

The invitation to prayer after the offering of the gifts is an example of what can result from "extensive" interpretation of the rubrics. In a bow to inclusive language, the English rubric for the Orate, fratres, allowed that, "at the discretion of the priest, other words which seem more suitable under the circumstances, such as friends, dearly beloved, my brothers and sisters, may be used." That is the extent of the "option"-a choice of exclusively either brothers or one of the other or similar suggestions like siblings. The intention of the lawgiver is clear enough and, at least in this case, extending the permission to the rest of the rubric opens the door to compounding a heresy. The distinction between the baptismal priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, between the priest's sacramental sacrifice and the people's spiritual sacrifice (meum ac vestrum sacrificium), was annihilated by the phrase "our sacrifice."

In the first, short-lived edition of the general instruction, the Consecration got the name "The Narration of the Institution." This must have seemed to be sufficient as a headline but it can be reductively misunderstood as expressing the total essence of the most sacred action in the world. There was a vehement response to the theological danger in the ambiguity but the last state of the title was worse than the first. As is painfully clear in the Latin text, the connective seu ("The Narration of the Institution or the Consecration") makes the one the equal of the other. Thus, a creative professorial or "expert" rubrical exegete could easily be inspired to use this "theological insight" in his interpretation of the rubrics of the Consecration. For, if the Consecration is equated with the "Narration of the Institution" and if the Mass is drama, should not the celebrant not only narrate but also act out the entire action for the congregation? The result in some places has been the practice of performing the Consecrations and starting the Elevations in two "show-and-tell," nearly or fully semi-circular, shoulder-level movements while the formulae of consecration are being proclaimed.

Whatever one may suspect about the inventor's theological basis or bias, anyone who reads the rubrics needs little imagination to see that this innovation cannot, by reason of physical impossibility, be reconciled with the liturgical rule. Although the Novus Ordo missal simplified the words of the Tridentine rubric, it retained the spirit of the rubric: the celebrant is to hold the bread (and later the chalice) not at all high above the altar but parum elevatum and he is not to be in an upright position but parum inclinatus while speaking the words of consecration. Parum is a very restrictive adverb, literally meaning too little or not enough, and, in a transferred sense, not particularly, not very, or a little.

It is especially ironic that the Communion Rite, which by its very nature expresses our corporate unity in Christ and the Church, was a favorite subject of early innovations. Probably imported from but not lawful in Masses with Special Groups like Cursillo or Marriage Encounter or an application of creative freedom ("what is not forbidden is permitted"), the ritual of holding hands during the Lord's Prayer had become so prevalent by 1975 that the Consilium had to condemn it. The Consilium explained, "The prolonged holding of hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace. Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics" (DOL 1502R29). The same can be applied to other similar gestures like extension and/or elevation of the hands proper to the celebrant alone. If they are not in the rubrics, they are proprio Marte intrusions. In the matter of congregational gestures generally, one has to look back to the customs under the Tridentine rite for the norm.

The sign of peace itself, which the Consilium described in the same reply as "filled with meaning, graciousness, and Christian inspiration," was never intended to become the dominant part of the Communion Rite. If, as the rubric suggests, it might not always be "opportune," it surely is not essential. If the celebrant judges it opportune, he is to give the rather brusque invitation to the people, "Offerte vobis pacem-Offer peace to one another" (no optional form allowed). Nor is the celebrant a peace-giver wandering outside the sanctuary or even a mobile peace-giver within the sanctuary; he is to give the peace to the deacon or server and then to get on with his business. Furthermore, the sign of peace is to be carried out in the manner determined by the conferences of bishops. Our conference determined that a sign of peace fitting the Consilium's parameters would take the form of exchanging a hand-shake with the person next to oneself. The solemnity of the moment is lost in a variety of antics. It is the peace of the Lord; should we not imitate him whose peace we give and who does not give peace as the world does? It does not require a great logical leap to conclude that the various emotional forms introduce other meanings into the rite and, even apart from that, are detrimental to a reverent preparation for Holy Communion.

A few practical points

First, while in promulgating our current missal Paul VI does not seem to have been especially enthusiastic about "the variations and adaptations" which he admitted into the new liturgy, hopefully nothing said up to this point will be taken as an effort to downgrade the value of these legitimate elements of our liturgy. The advantages of their judicious use cannot be denied.

Second, apart from the unexplainably gross lapse of Roman oversight in the case of the Orate, fratres, there are other sins against the rule of faith in translations. This is obvious from the well-known increasing opposition in recent bishops' meetings to the routine approval of translations and from the fact that "the bishops approved and funded a scholarly Forum for the Vernacular to examine questions of liturgical translation" (Credo, IV 1, p. 3). Ultimately, however, we may have to place our hope in a drastic, painstaking Roman revision modeled on the admirable performance of the revisers of the original English version of the Catechism. In any event, until we get our new texts, theologizing and homilizing on the basis of faulty translations could easily be in danger of being next-door to if not actually in heresy. Nevertheless, whatever our feelings or even well-based convictions about them might be in their present state, duly approved translations enjoy, as was noted above, the same unconditional sacrosanctness that the typical editions enjoy.

Third, not by any means a carry-over from the Tridentine Missal limited to elderly clergy is the embellishment of the Novus Ordo, contrary to its principle of simplification, with various formerly legitimate but now abrogated Tridentine signs of reverence and devotion. There is no suggestion here of imputing guilt or of measuring culpability according to the seriousness of the violated rubric, etc., but simply a reminder of the damage to the values protected by rubrics in general from proprio Marte actions.

Fourth, some of us with questions about rubrical purity might wish to start our personal efforts to restore liturgical unity by observing celebrants known for their loyalty to the Church. They may, however, still retain some of the old rites. Again, there is no suggestion here of anything like imputing guilt but it would be prudent to check the general instruction and the rubric against our observations. We can simply let the law speak for itself in a respectful, careful, unbiased reading of the plain words of the law, as, for example, the rubrics for the Consecration clearly illustrate. The first pastoral priority of every sacerdos must always be the liturgy and sacerdos is an inclusive word, embracing bishops as well as priests. We may not allow ourselves to be so "busy about many things" that we do not give our best efforts to "the one thing necessary," the unity so deeply desired by our Savior and what unity means for his Church.

Canon 846, 1, might be a good way to end this essay: "In the celebration of the sacraments, the liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be observed faithfully; because of this, no one is to add, remove, or change anything in them on his own initiative." For whatever specific reasons this law is in the Code of Canon Law, it could well appear also in the next revision of the Code because, if we would want to ask concerning any addition to, removal from, or alteration in the liturgy, "Would Jesus mind?" he has already answered in his assurance to the apostles, "He who hears you, hears me." The relative seriousness of a given rubric should not be our primary concern; our primary concern should be that any deviation from the rule of prayer diminishes the legacy of unity which Christ on the eve of his death asked his Father to bestow on his Church. n

1 Unless noted otherwise, the revised edition of the New American Bible is used.

2 Cf. CLSA, The Code of Canon Law: a Text and Commentary, p. 612.

3 Sacrosanctum Oecumenicum Concilium Vaticanum II, Constitutiones, Decreta, Declarationes, presented by the General Secretariat of Vatican Council II, pp. 935-936. Private translation. For a creative version, cf. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, a Joint Commission of Catholic Bishops' Conferences (hereinafter ICEL), Documents on the Liturgy 1962-1979. Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (hereinafter DOL with reference to marginal numbers), 132-135.