| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SACRED | LITURGY |
Adora Patrem in Spiritu et Veritate
Aspects of the Liturgical Magisterium,
Part I
by Peter A. Kwasniewski
It is no secret that Catholics throughout the world are confused and divided among themselves when it comes to the celebration of the sacred liturgy, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.1 Sometimes the faithful are forced to sit through ceremonies that hardly deserve the adjective “Catholic”; sometimes families in search of spiritual nourishment will search from parish to parish, or drive great distances, until they can find a liturgy worthy of the name. Abuses in the liturgy, whether in the nature of the words spoken or in a failure to observe rubrics, are so frequent and grave as to be a source of dismay, scandal, and doctrinal heresy. In one and the same parish, heated conflicts between “liberals” and “conservatives” break out, sometimes with a pastor or his assistants fighting against the more traditional wishes of the congregation, leaving many people in doubt as to who has true authority to make decisions about public worship or which of the decisions made are in harmony with Catholic teaching.
Of course we cannot but lament such a situation; the Holy Mass, which brings us
together to profess one common faith and participate in one common sacrifice, should be
the source and symbol of our unity, not the occasion of divisions beyond number. Since
this confusion originates predominantly in an habitual disregard of what the Church
carefully prescribes or recommends in her Magisterium, much of this scandalous confusion
could be cleared up once and for all if pastors, as well as the faithful, became more
familiar with what the Church actually teaches about the liturgy and duly put these
teachings into practice. Because it is true, alas, that some priests or parish assistants
today seem to care very little about what the Church teaches concerning faith, morals, or
discipline, the faithful need to educate themselves more than ever before. If they know
the teaching of the Church and their own rights, if they know what they may reasonably
expect or petition for, they can feel confident in resisting liturgical abuses or
abandoning as hopeless a situation which shows no signs of changing in spite of sincere
efforts. Recently, the movement to return to more traditional liturgical forms and
ceremonies has been gaining ever greater strength, prompted by a growing awareness among
the faithful that the ways in which public worship is often carried out are ultimately
destructive of the very essence of the Catholic religion. The faithful who feel this way
should be reassured that their views and aspirations are authoritatively recognized and
honored by the Church and are, for that very reason, a genuine expression of the sensus
fidelium, the movement of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the baptized.
The purpose of this series of articles is to outline certain fundamental aspects of the
Church’s liturgical Magisterium. This first article will briefly consider some
general points, including questions of jurisdiction, the character of liturgy, the meaning
of legitimate diversity, and the use of Latin in the Modern Roman Rite. The second article
will speak of sacred music, especially Gregorian chant, and its role in the liturgy. The
third and last article will address the resurgence of the Classical or Ancient Roman
Rite—familiarly known as the Tridentine rite—and what Holy Mother Church permits
and recommends in its regard. In this series we will use the phrase “Classical Roman
Rite” for the traditional order of Mass in its last typical edition (1962), and
“Modern Roman Rite” for the Novus Ordo Missae of 1970.2
Questions of Jurisdiction
First of all, we must ask the fundamental question: Who bears responsibility for the
regulation of liturgical rites — “regulation” including not only their
initial approval or promulgation but also the details of how they should be celebrated and
the boundaries of adaptation?3 Pius XII wrote: “. . . 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
modification. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the
exact observance 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 venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society
along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and the worship of God.”4
In like manner, the Second Vatican Council insists: “Regulation of the sacred liturgy
depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws
may determine, on the bishop.”5 A practical pastoral consequence follows: “Let
no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at
will.”6 Where norms or rules have been laid down by the Holy See concerning the
celebration of the Modern Roman Rite, the Classical Roman Rite, and the various Eastern
rites, all Catholics — especially priests — are obliged in good conscience to
conform their actions to these norms. It also follows that no priest is authorized to make
any changes whatsoever in the text or rubrics of the liturgy as promulgated or approved by
the Holy See. “Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or
change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”7 The priest, and above all the
bishop,
should have a special sense of the common good of the Church, which he represents through
his ministry, but to which he must also be subordinate, according to a correct discipline
of faith. He cannot consider himself a ‘proprietor’ who can make free use of the
liturgical text and of the sacred rite as if it were his own property, in such a way as to
stamp it with his own arbitrary personal style. At times this latter might seem more
effective, and it may better correspond to subjective piety; nevertheless, objectively it
is always a betrayal of that union which should find its proper expression in the
sacrament of unity.8
Thus, “indispensable effort is required everywhere to ensure that within the
pluralism of Eucharistic worship envisioned by the Second Vatican Council, the unity of
which the Eucharist is the sign and cause is clearly manifested.”9
The liturgical rites must retain a dignified and sacred character. The
effectiveness of liturgical actions does not consist in the continual search for newer
rites or simpler forms, but in an ever deeper insight into the word of God and the mystery
which is celebrated. The presence of God will be ensured by following the rites of the
Church rather than those inspired by the priest’s individual preferences. The priest
should realize that by imposing his own personal restoration of sacred rites he is
offending the rights of the faithful and is introducing individualism and idiosyncrasy
into celebrations which belong to the whole Church. The ministry of the priest is the
ministry of the whole Church, and it can be exercised only in obedience, in hierarchical
fellowship, and in devotion to the service of God and of his brothers. The hierarchical
structure of the liturgy, its sacramental power, and the respect due to the community of
God’s people require that the priest exercise his liturgical service as a
“faithful minister and steward of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1).10
Character of Liturgy
Next, let us consider some points about the nature of liturgical celebrations in general.
According to Pius XII, “Three characteristics . . . should adorn all liturgical
services: sacredness, which abhors any profane influence; nobility, which true and genuine
arts should serve and foster; and universality, which while safeguarding local and
legitimate custom, reveals the Catholic unity of the Church.”11 An emphasis on
safeguarding the sacredness and spiritual ethos of liturgical actions, both in what
pertains to their inner essence and in what pertains to their “accidentals” or
outward appearance, is present throughout Magisterial documents—for example, when
John Paul II writes concerning the mystery of the Eucharist:
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 . . . . This must
always be remembered, perhaps above all in our time, when we see a tendency to do away
with the distinction between ‘sacred’ and ‘profane,’ given the
widespread tendency, at least in some places, to desacralize everything. In view of this
fact, the Church has a special duty to safeguard and strengthen the sacredness of the
Eucharist.12
This sacredness is fostered precisely when the sacramental rites are celebrated in the
reverent and dignified manner intended by the Church. All aspects of the
ceremonies—especially the “active participation” of the faithful—must
be focused on the worship of the Lord present in our midst.
Since the liturgy is the exercise of the priesthood of Christ, it is necessary to keep
ever alive the affirmation of the disciple faced with the mysterious presence of Christ:
‘It is the Lord!’ (Jn. 21:7). Nothing of what we do in the liturgy can appear
more important than what in an unseen but real manner Christ accomplishes by the power of
His Spirit. A faith alive in charity, adoration, praise of the Father and silent
contemplation will always be the prime objective of liturgical and sacramental pastoral
care.13
Warning against “one-dimensional and unilateral interpretations of the Council’s
teaching,” our Holy Father clarifies what should be understood by the “full,
conscious, active participation” sought by the Council:14
. . . full participation does not mean that everyone does everything, since this would
lead to a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing of the clergy; and this was not what
the Council had in mind. The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and
polyphonic, respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the
different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise. . . . Active participation
certainly means that, in gesture, word, song, and service, all the members of the
community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet
active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness, and
listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when
listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant and the
chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they
are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters
meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we
see how the liturgy, though it must be properly inculturated, must also be
counter-cultural.15
One of the ways in which the liturgy ought to be counter-cultural will be discussed in the
second article of the series when we look into the teachings of Holy Mother Church in the
area of sacred music.
Legitimate diversity
At the heart of conciliar and post-conciliar teaching on liturgy is the insistence on a
legitimate diversity or pluralism of rites and forms, duly adapted to different cultural
circumstances and diverse needs of the people of God: “in faithful obedience to
tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully
recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the
future and to foster them in every way.”16 The most evident examples are the numerous
richly-developed Eastern rites, which deserve the utmost honor and are entitled to a
proper autonomy.17 Addressing Ukrainian rite Catholics, John Paul II said:
As history testifies, the Church developed a number of rites and traditions as in the
course of time she spread from Jerusalem to the nations and took flesh in the language,
culture, and human traditions of the individual peoples who accepted the Gospel with open
hearts. These various rites and traditions, far from being a sign of deviation,
infidelity, or disunity, were in fact unfailing proof of the presence of the Holy Spirit,
who continually renews and enriches the Church, the kingdom of Christ already present in
mystery (LG 3). The various traditions within the Church give expression to the multitude
of ways the Gospel can take root and flower in the lives of God’s people. They are
living evidence of the richness of the Church. Each one, while united to all the others in
the “same faith, the same sacraments, and the same government” (OE 2), is
nevertheless manifested in its own liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual
patrimony. Each tradition combined particular artistic expressions and unique spiritual
insights with an unparalleled lived experience of being faithful to Christ.18
One sometimes hears people — usually those who wish to exclude from parish life
anything other than a very contemporary style of vernacular liturgy — asserting that
“today the Latin rite exists in only one form, namely, that of the Novus Ordo Missae
of 1970, in whatever vernacular edition is current.” First of all, this assertion is
false on the surface; to take some examples, the Ambrosian rite is still celebrated
(though in a somewhat modified form) in Milan, the Mozarabic rite in Toledo, and the
Dominican rite in several Dominican communities. Besides being factually false, such an
assertion could also lead to false inferences. It can give the impression that the Latin
rite Church has only had one rite at a time, when as a matter of historical fact there has
been a tremendous wealth of different forms even at the same time (e.g., the Gallican and
Sarum variants of the Roman rite prior to the Council of Trent, or the rites proper to
various religious orders like the Carthusians, Cistercians, and Carmelites prior to the
Second Vatican Council). It can also give the impression that the Roman rite itself is one
absolutely fixed thing, whereas a broader view of the daily life of thousands of
congregations throughout the world show that even the Modern Roman Rite exists in a
diversity of authorized adaptations or modes (e.g., in Latin or in the vernacular,
modified for Asian or African local churches, the so-called “Anglican usage,”
etc.), and that the Roman Rite itself now officially exists in two separate forms, each
equally approved by the Holy See and available to all Catholic congregations: the Modern
rite and the Classical or Tridentine rite. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that
the ever-increasing presence of the Classical Roman Rite in monasteries and parishes
throughout the world is one of the most hopeful signs and sources of renewal in the
post-Conciliar Church, which has been severely wounded by much ill-advised liturgical
experimentation and a thoughtless abandonment of the Western liturgical heritage.
Legitimate differences in the Roman rite were allowed in the past and were foreseen by the
Second Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Liturgy, especially in the missions.
‘Even in the liturgy the church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters
that do not affect the faith or the good of the whole community.’ It has known and
still knows many different forms and liturgical families, and considers that this
diversity, far from harming her unity, underlines its value.19
In spite of the maternal solicitude and generosity shown by the Church in approving the
celebration of the Latin rite in its diverse forms and modes, there are many laymen and
clerics who lack sufficient awareness of the Church’s regulations or who remain
suspicious of certain policies and do not grasp their rationale. Some even try to stifle
this legitimate pluralism, insisting that Catholics must worship in one way and in one way
only (for example, that the Modern Roman Rite ought to be celebrated only in English or
another vernacular language rather than in Latin, or that the Classical Roman Rite is off
limits even to those faithful and priests who request it). This attitude and behavior are,
however, utterly contrary to the pastoral mind of the Church, and not only damage the
glorious riches of orthodox liturgical diversity but also create resentment, aggravate
grievances, and sacrifice charity to expediency or ideology. “Liturgical diversity
can be a source of enrichment, but it can also provoke tensions, mutual misunderstandings,
and even divisions. In this field it is clear that diversity must not damage unity. It can
only gain expression in fidelity to the common Faith, to the sacramental signs that the
Church has received from Christ, and to hierarchical communion,” writes our Holy
Father.20 It is for this reason that he earnestly pleads with everyone:
Above all I wish to emphasize that the problems of the liturgy, and in particular of 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 of
behavior, instead of being the focal point and constitutive center, which it truly is in
its essence, of the unity of the Church itself? We are all equally indebted to our
Redeemer. We should all listen together to that spirit of truth and of love whom He has
promised to the Church and who is operative in her. In the name of this truth and of this
love, in the name of the crucified Christ and of His Mother, I ask you, and beg you: Let
us abandon all opposition and division, and let us all unite in this great mission of
salvation which is the price and at the same time the fruit of our redemption. 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.21
Instead of the distrust and stubborn partiality that arise from personal weaknesses or
from “one-dimensional and unilateral interpretations of the Council,”22
Catholics must manifest more and more that “love of the brethren” which takes
concrete form in mutual respect, openness to the voice of the Magisterium, and balanced
pastoral policies which allow to all believers the orderly freedom the Church herself
wishes them to enjoy. This is the very request made by our Holy Father:
In line with the spirit of conversion of the apostolic letter Tertio millennio adveniente
(14, 32, 34, 50), I encourage all Catholics to make gestures of unity and to renew their
adherence to the Church, in order that legitimate diversity and different sensibilities,
worthy of respect, do not separate them from each other, but encourage them, rather, to
preach the Gospel together. Stimulated thus by the Spirit who makes all charismata come
together in unity, all will be able to glorify the Lord and salvation will be proclaimed
to all the nations.23
The Use of Latin
The everyday experience of Roman Catholics can bear witness to the now-universal usage of
vernacular languages in the celebration of the Modern Roman Rite. This usage was
authorized in the early 1970s by the Holy See, following the suggestion of the Council:
“since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the
sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the
people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives, and in some
prayers and chants.”24 “A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in
Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and the common
prayer, and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the
people.”25 As these texts show, the Conciliar Fathers clearly envisioned a limited
use of the vernacular, while taking for granted the continued presence of Latin as the
liturgical language par excellence. It is therefore urgent to clarify the status of Latin
in the life of the Church today, particularly in her public worship. As very little
accurate information is disseminated about this subject, the vast majority of
Catholics—including those animated by a desire to honor the mind of the
Church—remain in a state of ignorance.
Surprising as it may seem, Latin remains the official language not only of the Catholic
Church but of the Roman rite itself in all its forms. The praises of Latin are often sung
in official documents, and its use is encouraged wherever and whenever circumstances are
favorable. This language, which, in the words of John XXIII, “proved so admirable a
means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West” and was
“instrumental in joining the Christian peoples of Europe together in the close bonds
of unity,”26 is recommended for use especially (1) where a linguistically diverse
body of the faithful comes together for worship, or (2) where steps are taken beforehand
to ensure that the faithful understand what is being said or sung and may participate
accordingly. We have already seen that John Paul II considers the activities of silent
receptivity to chants and prayers to be not only a legitimate but also an indispensable
mode of active participation.
In a remarkable but too little known encyclical, Veterum sapientia (1962), John XXIII
describes the qualities of Latin which make it suitable to be the Church’s own
language.
Of its very nature, Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among
peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents
itself with equal impartiality to all, and is equally acceptable to all. Nor must we
overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin’s formal structure. Its concise,
varied, and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity, makes for singular clarity and
impressiveness of expression. For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains
to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching
authority . . .“Thus the knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately
bound up with the Church’s life, “is important not so much on cultural or
literary grounds as for religious reasons . . . . For the Church, precisely because it
embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time, of its very nature
requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”27
Far from abolishing this “universal, immutable, and non-vernacular” language,
the Second Vatican Council sought to keep it. In the two key places in the Constitution on
the Liturgy where vernacular usage is proposed, the Council Fathers are careful to add:
“Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved
in the Latin rites”; “care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be
able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which
pertain to them.”28 In regard to the Ordinary of the Mass, the General Instruction on
the Roman Missal (n. 19) stipulates a bare minimum of Latin chant: “it is desirable
that all should be able to sing together in Latin at least some parts of the Order of
Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer.”
There are some who maintain that, while the will of the Church at the time of the Council
was ambivalent in regard to the continued use of Latin in the liturgy, in the
post-conciliar period it changed into an unambiguous mandating of local languages and a
corresponding banishment of Latin. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although the
use of Latin has by and large disappeared in practice, the use of the vernacular is not
mandatory. There has never been any question about the fact that Latin, as the traditional
language of the Catholic Church herself, may always be used, no special permission being
needed, as long as priests pay sufficient attention to the abilities of their
congregation. On the contrary, it was the use of the vernacular that had to be approved by
the competent territorial authorities in accordance with norms issued by the Holy See. To
take one example, the Instruction on Sacred Music published shortly after the close of the
Council states:
According to the Constitution on the Liturgy, “the use of the Latin language, with
due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (Sacrosanctum
concilium 36:1). However, since “the use of the vernacular may frequently be of great
advantage to the people” (ibid. 36:2), “it is for the competent territorial
ecclesiastical authority to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is
to be used” (ibid. 36:3). In observing these norms exactly, one will therefore employ
that form of participation which best matches the capabilities of each congregation.
Pastors of souls should take care that besides the vernacular “the faithful may also
be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which
pertain to them” (ibid. 54).29
The use of the vernacular is permitted by Holy Mother Church for the pastoral good of her
children, but it is not, nor can it be, mandated for any given congregation; whereas the
use of Latin is already implicit in the very nature of the Roman rite, and can be
preserved or introduced when no impediments stand to the contrary—a fortiori when the
desire for it, or an attitude of welcome towards it, already exists.
It was certainly the expectation and will of Paul VI, as it is of John Paul II now, that
the use of Latin neither would nor should be blotted out. “Let us remember well, as
both an admonition and a consolation,” said Paul VI, “that Latin will certainly
not disappear in our Church.”30
The study of Latin must still be cultivated in our times and above all in seminaries and
houses for the religious formation of the young. In no way is it permissible to ignore
this language if there is to be any genuine attempt to create keen minds in the young, to
train them in humane letters, to probe and reflect on the words of the Fathers, and above
all to prepare them to share fully in the ancient treasuries of the liturgy. Without the
knowledge of Latin something is altogether missing from a higher, fully rounded
education—and in particular with regard to theology and liturgy.31
The usually mild Paul VI reserves strong words for those who think otherwise: “We
want to say something very plainly to those whose shallow minds or unthinking passion for
the new leads them to the idea that the Latin language must be totally spurned by the
Latin Church. To them we say that it is absolutely clear that Latin must be held in high
honor” (ibid.).
John Paul II agrees. “Given that the liturgy is the school of the Church’s
prayer, it has been considered good to introduce and develop the use of the
vernacular—without diminishing the use of Latin, retained by the Council for the
Latin rite.”32 “The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the
splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion
presents itself.”33 In explaining the meaning of “conscious participation”
(Sacrosanctum concilium 14), our Holy Father writes:
Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the
mysteries of the liturgy . . . But it does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy
itself to make the implicit explicit . . . Nor does it mean the suppression of all
subconscious experience, which is vital in a liturgy that thrives on symbols that speak to
the subconscious just as they speak to the conscious. The use of the vernacular has
certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part, but this does not
mean that the Latin language, and especially the Gregorian chants which are so superbly
adapted to the genius of the Roman rite, should be wholly abandoned.34
Indeed, whoever wholly abandons Latin and Gregorian chant in the liturgy—and whoever
opposes or tries to prevent their renewed use in our own times—indicates that he
understands neither the Second Vatican Council nor the Church’s authoritative
interpretation of it.
Peter A. Kwasniewski is an Instructor in Philosophy at the International Theological
Institute in Gaming, Austria.
1 The liturgy of the Church includes also the “Liturgy of
Hours,” otherwise known as the Divine Office or Liturgical Hours; but the principal
liturgical action has always been the Mass itself, and for this reason the word
“liturgy” has come to be almost synonymous with Mass.
2 “Classical Roman Rite” or “ancient Roman rite” are
the most acceptable and neutral terms of reference; many of the other labels given to this
form of the Roman rite (the Tridentine rite; the old rite or old Mass; the pre-Vatican II
Mass; the Latin Mass) can be misleading and sometimes false, for reasons that will become
apparent. In like manner, “Modern Roman Rite” — which I borrow from Msgr.
Peter Elliott’s excellent book Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 1995)—is the best nomenclature for the rite promulgated by Pope Paul
VI. It is certainly preferable to: new Mass, Novus Ordo, Mass of Vatican II, vernacular
Mass; there are good reasons for avoiding these terms.
3 Citations in this article are taken from four sources: Austin
Flannery, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-conciliar Documents (Collegeville:
Liturgical Press, 1992); Documents on the Liturgy, International Commission on English in
the Liturgy (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1982); NCWC and USCC publications; and the
Catholic Liturgical Library [www.catholicliturgy.com].
4 Mediator Dei n. 58.
5 Sacrosanctum concilium n. 22. “Since liturgical celebrations are
not private acts but celebrations of the Church, the sacrament of unity, their regulation
is dependent solely upon the hierarchical authority of the Church. The liturgy belongs to
the whole body of the Church” (John Paul II, Vicesimus quintus annus, 4 December
1988, n. 10). A corollary follows: “The holy sacrifice of the Mass is an act of
worship offered to God in the name of Christ and the Church; of its nature, it is public,
regardless of the place or manner of its celebration. Thus, the term ‘private
Mass’ should never be used” (De musica sacra, Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3
September 1958, n. 2). As the Council puts it: “Liturgical services are not private
functions but are celebrations of the Church which is ‘the sacrament of unity,’
namely, ‘the holy people united and arranged under their bishops’”
(Sacrosanctum concilium n. 26). The Council uses the term “quasi-private” (ibid.
n. 27) to describe Masses at which only a priest and acolytes are present (ibid. n. 57).
6 Mediator Dei n. 65.
7 Ibid. This warning is repeated many times: see, e.g., Sacram liturgiam
(Paul VI, 25 January 1964), n. 11: “Lastly, We would draw attention to the fact that
. . . the regulation of the sacred liturgy is vested exclusively in the Church: that is to
say, in this Apostolic See and, in the measure allowed by the law, in the bishop. For this
reason, nobody else, not even a priest, is entitled to add, take away, or change anything
in matters of liturgy”; see also Tres abhinc annos (Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4
May 1967), Intro.; Eucharisticum mysterium (Sacred Congregation of Rites, 25 May 1967), n.
45; Liturgiae instaurationes (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, 5 September 1970),
n. 3; Inaestimabile donum (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, 3 April 1980), Intro.
8 John Paul II, Dominicae coenae (24 February 1980), ch. 3, sec. 3.
9 Ibid.
10 Liturgiae instaurationes n. 1.
11 Mediator Dei n. 188.
12 Dominicae coenae ch. 2, sec. 1.
13 Vicesimus quintus annus n. 10.
14 See Sacrosanctum concilium n. 14.
15 Ad limina discourse to the Bishops of the Northwestern United States
(9 October 1998), nn. 3–4.
16 Sacrosanctum concilium n. 4.
17 See Orientalium ecclesiarum, the Decree of the Second Vatican Council
on the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the references given there; the Code of Canon Law
for Eastern Churches. For commentary, see Victor J. Pospishil, Canonical-Pastoral
Commentary on Orientalium ecclesiarum of Vatican II (Bronx, NY: John XXIII Center for
Eastern Christian Studies, Fordham University, 1965).
18 Address to the Ukrainian community of Philadelphia (4 October 1979).
19 Fourth Instruction on the Correct Implementation of the Liturgical
Constitution (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, 1994), n. 1.
20 Vicesimus quintus annus n. 16.
21 Dominicae coenae, conclusion.
22 Ad limina discourse to the Bishops of the Northwestern United States,
n. 3.
23 John Paul II, Discourse on the Tenth Anniversary of Ecclesia Dei
adflicta (26 October 1998).
24 Sacrosanctum concilium n. 36.
25 Sacrosanctum concilium n. 54. For all official texts concerning the
introduction of the vernacular into the liturgy, see Documents on the Liturgy,
267–302.
26 Veterum sapientia n. 1.
27 The quotation at the end is taken from Pius XI.
28 Sacrosanctum concilium nn. 36 and 54. The insistence that the
faithful should be able to recite or sing the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin