Adoremus Bulletin - February 1996 Issue

Post Office Box 5858 Arlington, VA 22205

. DOREMUS BULLETIN

BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO. 1889 SAN DIEGO, CA

SOCIETY FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE SACRED LITURGY Vol. I, No. 4

February 1996 ·

LITURGISTS PLAN YOUR FUTURE

'New Year's Resolutions' of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions

A

t its October 1995 meeting in Providence, Rhode Island, the Federation of Diocesan Litur­ gical Commissions (FDLC) adopted a series of propositions which address "hot-button" liturgical issues. The views and plans and recommenda­ tions of this group affect every Catholic in America. The federation, which comprises diocesan liturgical commission directors, was created in October 1969 by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' liturgy committee as a quasi-official advisory body. The relationship between the bishops' committee and the federation is, therefore, very close - and has been for 25 years.

The federation conducts studies, makes recommendations and issues "position statements" and "resolu­ tions" which provide direction for the liturgy committee.

The federation's current chair­ man, Fr. James P. Moroney, has just been named associate director of the Bishops' Committee on Liturgy (BCL) secretariat. The federation's executive director, Chicago theolo­ gian Fr. Michael Spillane, is on the panel of consultants to the BCL. Sr. Linda Gaupin, a former member of the BCL secretariat, is now on the board of the federation. Fr. Moroney noted in the FDLC newsletter (Sep­ tember-November 1995), that for the

The views and plans and recommendations of this group affect every Catholic in America. past two years the federation's board has "sought particularly to strength­ en the Federation's unique relation­ ship to the BCL through regular con­ tact with the BCL Secretariat," and by continued participation of federation officers in meetings of the bishops' committee and at semi-annual NCCB meetings.

Because of the intimate rela­ tionship between the bishops' com­ mittee and the federation, the latter's activities are of more than passing concern to ADOREMUS. We reprint these propositions which reveal the direction and cur­ rent objectives of the liturgical establishment, along with our com­ ments, as a service to bishops, priests and all concerned about Catholic worship. Moi;t topics raised in the FDLC propositions will be examined in greater detail in future issues of Adoremus Bulletin. (See articles related to "Gesture and Posture," and excerpts from Bishop Trautman's address to the federa­ tion's national meeting in this issue.)

T

wo types of propositions were voted on by the federation dele­ gates. The first, Position Statements (designated PS), must be submitted before a deadline which is some time before the national meet­ ing. The other type, called Resolutions of Immediate Concern (designated RIC), deal with items which are deemed to be of immedi­ ate interest on problems which may have arisen after the deadline.

Delegates do not simply cast a

ences be cited more completely to clarify that relationship between the principles of Environment and Art in Catholic Worship and their primary sources in universal Roman docu­ ments. (Passed +2.90) AB comment: The document, Environment and Art in Catholic Worship (EACW) has for years been

the blueprint for the "renovation" of Catholic churches. Although EACW was the product of a committee, and not subjected to the usual debate and vote of the NCCB, it is invoked as if it were a document of the highest authority of the Church. AB will be examining this document in future issues.

Celebration of Sunday Eucharist (PS 1995 C)

Bishops huddle in conversation at-the National Conference of Catholic Bishops

Yes or No vote on these proposi­ tions. They register a "degree of commitment" on a scale from +3 (highest commitment) to -3 (total opposition). These numerical votes are then averaged to decide whether a proposition had passed (which requires a minimum commitment level of + 1.5) and with what degree of commitment. Degrees of commit­ ment are indicated following the propositions.

Gesture and Posture of the Assembly at Eucharistic Celebrations (PS 1995 A)

It is the position of the dele­ gates to the 1995 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions

that the Board of Directors of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions commission bulletin inserts on the topics of gesture and posture of the assembly at Eucharistic celebrations giving spe­ cial attention to standing, bowing, and genuflecting as well as appropri­ ate signs of reverence in receiving communion. (Passed +2.00) Adoremus Bulletin comment: The capitalization is as in the original, that is, "Eucharistic" is capitalized, but "communion" is not. Note the absence of any mention of kneeling in the list of postures to be consid­ ered.

Support and Endorsement of Environment and Art in Catholic Worship (PS 1995 B)

It is the position of the dele­ gates to the 1995 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions that the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions' Board of Directors express to the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy the Federation's support and endorse­ ment of the document, Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, and urge that any revision of or sequel to this document preserve the vision of the original and its faithful adher­ ence to the universal law of the Church. We further urge that refer-

It is the position of the dele­ gates to the 1995 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions that the Board of Directors of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions communicate to the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy that the practice of Sunday celebra­ tion in the absence of a priest as a substitute for Sunday eucharist is not acceptable and that it is urgent that they take action to ensure that the celebration the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is provided on every Sunday to all parish communities, whose very identity and Catholic life is consti­ "tuted in the celebration of the holy eucharist. (Passed +2.545) AB comment: Again the capitaliza­ tion is as in the original: "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" is capitalized, but "holy eucharist" lower case.

The FDLc's urgency in declar­ ing the need of Catholics for the Eucharist every single Sunday in every parish sounds good.

Unfortunately, however, this same argument has been repeatedly and cynically used to promote the agen­ da of ordaining women, married (continued on page 7)

Bishop Trautman's Address to FDLC > Following are quotations [; from the address given by Erie Bishop Donald Trautman, chair­ man of the NCCB Committee on the Liturgy, to the delegates to the 1995 National Meeting of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions in [FDLC] ! Providence, RI, October 5, 1995.

(Text in brackets is a summary to give context. Direct quotations are from the text of Bishop Trautman's address as published in the October, 1995 issue of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter.)

The FDLC is an association of diocesan liturgists established by the BCL.

I;

"It has been a long, and at times, a difficult year since we last met in St. Louis. At the same time, it has been a year filled with hope and confidence, a year when we have seen the end results of more than ten years of work on the trans­ lation of liturgical texts. ICEL has

completed its task of translating nearly 2,000 texts in the Roman Missal and deserves the thanks of the Church for its scholariy work. ... All the action items pertaining to the revision of the Sacramentary, so far presented to the American Catholic Bishops by its Liturgical Committee, have been approved by a two-thirds vote. This is good news for all liturgists, and I thank you for your support and help in interpreting these liturgical items to your bishop.

"Biblical scholars are present­ ly at work revising the New American Bible Lectionary so that it will have a balanced use of hori­ zontal inclusive language. I have attended meetings in Rome relative to this matter and I am happy to report biblical experts are applying from the norms received Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Lectionary."

[The bishop is here referring to "secret norms" for translation (continued on page 6)

Bishop Donald Trautman on kneeling: "No change in present discipline"

Adoremus Bulletin• Vol. 1, No. 4 February 1996

NOTE TO READERS

!he Adoremus Bulletin continues to receive a tremendous response from its readers. We have received just over 2,000 letters since Christmas alone_ Many letters !n�luded _donation�, �or which we are most grateful. (A coupon for subscnptIons, �•ft subscriptions or donations is on page 6). If _ yo� would like extra copies . of AB, please write to: PO Box 5858, Arhngt�n, VA 22205. (A donation of $15 per subscription would be much appreciated.) . AooREMus's support continues to grow: This month an American b1sho� has subsc�ibed each of his diocesan priests to the Adoremus Bulletm. And two bishops of the Episcopal Church are subscribers Although it _is not possible to print all letters, ADOAEMUS thi�ks it is . important to pr�vIde readers. a foru� for discussion and exchange of ideas on th� sacred liturgy. We will continue to publish as many as possible in each ,�sue. We do want to h�ar from you. It will help us address your con­ cerns m AB. Short letters preferred. AooREMUS reserves the right to edit all letters. Please send EDITORIAL MAIL ONLY to: Editor, Adoremus Bulletin PO Box 3286 St. Louis l Missouri 63130

ADOREMUS OFF BASE?

ADOREMUS BULLETIN EDITORIAL STAFF

Editor: Helen Hull Hitchcock Managing Editor: Richard R. Hough Ill Editorial Committee: Joseph Fessio, S.J. Helen Hull Hitchcock James Holman Fr. Jerry Pokorsky

ADOREMUS BOARD OF ADVISORS

Mother Angelica Kenneth Baker, S.J. Terry Barber Joseph Fessio, S.J. Helen Hull Hitchcock James Hitchcock James Holman Philip Lawler Ralph Mcinerny Fr. Jerry Pokorsky Msgr. Richard Schuler Fr. Peter Stravinskas

Subscriptions and all business communications: ADOREMUS

Richard R. Hough III, Adm. Dir. PO Box 5858 Arlington, VA 22205 Phone: (703) 241-5858 Fax: (703) 241-0068 Subscriptions free on request, or vol­ untary $15/year (US). Call or send check or money order.

Editorial communications including letters-to-editor: ADOREMUS BULLETIN PO Box 3286 St. Louis, MO 63130 E-mail: 72223.360 I @compuserve.com ADOREMUS BULLETIN

[ISSN Pending) is the monthly publication of Adoremus-Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy, established in June 1995, to promote authentic reform of the liturgy of the Roman Rite in accordance with the intention of the Second Vatican Council expressed in its decree on the litur­ gy, Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Contcnls copyright I 996 by Adorcmus. All rights reserved. Adoremus 1s a non-profit corporation of the State of California.

PAGE 2

I'm sorry I cannot support your project because the very first objec­ tive you mention is one with which I have no sympathy. Anyone that was aware of the Tridentine liturgy would know that there were more abuses involved in those celebra­ tions than there are at the present time with the so-called new liturgy.

The only saving thing was that the people did not know what the priest was trying to say so, the fact that half the prayers were skipped, slurred over, missed, was never brought to their attention. Even with the aberrations that we occasionally see in the liturgy today and, I admit, there are some serious defects in some celebrations, to my mind these are not nearly as serious as the total­ ly hurried and slovenly fashion in which the Latin was recited. It was a real blessing for the Church when we came to use the vernacular in the liturgy.

I would hope that your purpose is to fully realize and bring out the beauty of our liturgy and help the people to understand better their involvement and participation so that our liturgical celebrations will be more grace-filled and meaning­ ful.

Most Rev. Daniel E. Sheehan Archbishop of Omaha (ret.)

We thank Archbishop Sheenan for his concern. We think his suggestion that ADOREMUS advocates "a return to the preconciliar Mass" indicates he may have misread our initial let­ ter.

AD0REMUS is committed to authentic liturgical reform as desired by the Second Vatican Council. Our list of goals states that "We fully and unreservedly accept the principles of Liturgical Reform enunciated at the Second Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. We accept the Second Vatican Council as an act of the Church's supreme Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. " We share share Archbishop Sheehan's hopes for AD0REMUS. One of our stated aims is to "foster greater understanding and actual participation in the Church's worship. " - Ed.

LUTHERANS SHARE UTURGlr.AL CONCERNS

I have been reading with great interest the initial issues of Adoremus Bulletin. I became acquainted with the positions reflected in your publication through reading Dr. [James] Hitchcock's book on the liturgy, [Recovery of the Sacred] recently reprinted by Ignatius .

Why is a Lutheran, and a con­ servative one at that, writing you?

You may be wondering. I note that we would have serious disagree­ ments when it comes to our theolog­ ical understandings, even as these

impact the church's life of worship.

But what I do find interesting is how closely the concerns being raised through Adoremus Bulletin parallel those being raised in many Protestant circles when it comes to recovering the sense of the sacred in the worship service.

In our own Lutheran church particularly among those of us who maintain the truth of the Confessional writings of our church, we view the Divine Service as a time when God acts among us and in us through the Divine Word and the Sacraments. Therefore, I could­ n't help but smile as I read the head­ line in your advertisement, "Has Sunday Mass at your parish become a trial and a distraction rather than a time of recollection and worship?" I also couldn't help but laugh out loud in agreement when I heard Mother Angelica say on television, "Sometimes I tell people that they must feel they belong to the electric church. Everytime they go to Mass, they get a shock!" I have similar feelings from time to time when I review some of the liturgical materi­ als being produced at the parish level in our church.

Our times are indeed strange. I live here in St. Louis, in a suburb known as Ballwin. Our neighbor­ hood consists mainly of Roman Catholics. I was at a Christmas party with many of my RC neighbors and they were complaining rather bitter­ ly that their parish priest would not permit them to have "Santa" bring in the offering at the beginning of Mass. They thought the children would love that. Seems the priest did not think this would be appropri­ ate. I listened with interest to the conversation and then they turned to me and said, "What do you think?" I said, "I agree 100% with your priest!" That led to more interesting discussions. And so it goes!

The movement toward what we know in our church as "contempo­ rary" or "informal" or "relevant" worship, parallels closely the sort of concerns you are raising in your publication. It is always encouraging to see that others are facing these challenges with such intellectual and spiritual vigor. Many blessings as you do. It would be nice to have the luxury of more time to return to the very necessary dialogue between our two churches on the substantial the­ ological differences which continue to divide us. To that end, and to the greater good of your publication, I wish you all the best in your efforts.

Rev. Paul T. McCain Asst. to the President The Lutheran Church­ Missouri Synod

* * *

Since I am a very conservative Lutheran layman, I am not really sure how I got on your mailing list, but I do appreciate receiving the Adoremus Bulletin. Having identi­ fied myself, I am sure that you real­ ize that there are many elements of the Roman liturgy with which I can not agree nor would ever approve.

However, the matter of proper (appropriate) divine worship and liturgy is (or should be) of universal interest, no matter what tradition.

(Although we would obviously dis­ agree on what is "appropriate!")

Concerns about "liturgical renewal are by no means limited to Catholicism!

Although I am most familiar with Lutheranism, I know that other traditions are experiencing the same "trauma" in varying degrees. It is apparent that, in efforts to be "popu­ lar" and/or "relevant" (read that as "get more bodies in the pews to fill the coffers!") the enthusiasts for do­ it-yourself/cut-and-paste liturgies have produced forms of worship which are more often anthropocen­ tric than theocentric. Or, to put it another way, some seem to want to be of the world as well as in it which, in my opinion, is at consider­ able variance with our Lord's admo­ nition.

One of the most troublesome aspects (certainly not the most trou­ blesome) is the abandonment of consistency. There was a time when one could visit almost any Lutheran congregation across the country and feel comfortable, because the liturgy was the same as one's home congre­ gation. Conservative Lutherans are struggling to stem the tide of "mod­ ernism" and are experiencing some moderate successes. We, of course, cannot appeal to Canon Law, a Magisterium, or papal authority (for which, you will understand, we give thanks!), but we do have Holy Scripture, our Confessions and our denominational Constitution and Bylaws.

Being well prepared, as Lou Bruno writes in Adoremus Bulletin (Vol. 1, #2) is crucial to approaching others with any reasonable expecta­ tion of even being heard. We do have an advantage in that the laity have considerably more voice in affairs. (Unfortunately, many would rather not enter the struggle and choose to "vote with their feet.")

I would appreciate remaining on your mailing list. Although I can­ not agree with the "end result," as it were (I'm certainly not in a position to promote Romanism), I can still sympathize with your struggle to retain/regain that which is proper in your sight as far as the Roman litur­ gy is concerned. (Just because one may disagree does not mean that there is nothing to be learned.)

E. A. Weise, Editor

California Confessional Concerns

San Leandro, CA

These letters from committed Lutheran leaders clearly demon­ strate the ecumenical dimension of the current liturgical crisis. Too often Catholics are unaware of the impact that the erosion of doctrine and the secularization of worship has had on all Christian churches.

This expression of concern by Protestants for authentic worship may be instructive for "traditional­ ist" Catholics who regard the litur­ gical reform intended by the Second Vatican Council as ''protestantiz­ ing." - Ed.

CONFUSED BY VARIATIONS I enjoyed my first issue of

Adoremus. I liked the article on

How to Address a Liturgical Abuse.

The problem is that I don't know the correct format of Holy Mass anymore. In some parishes you may stand after the Mystery of Faith. In others you may stand from the saying of the Our Father to the end of Communion service. Some parishes stand during the whole Eucharistic Liturgy. Other parishes removed their kneelers. Most people think what the priest does is okay by the bishops. What corrections should be made?

Don Hanbury Milwaukee, WI

The reader is not alone in his confu­ sion about all those variations, offi­ cial and unofficial. AB addresses the issue of posture (kneeling or stand­ ing) during the Eucharistic Prayer in this issue. One of the purposes of AD0REMUS is to provide encourage­ ment and concrete information to Catholics who need and want to know where the Church truly stands on liturgical matters. As this letter shows, many faithful Catholics are confused.

LANGUAGE ISSUES A SILLY DISTRACTION?

After receiving two issues of the Adoremus Bulletin, I am certain­ ly encouraged by your goals and sensitivity. The muddled state of the Sacred Liturgy is symptomatic of the confusion and disarray in the church today.

While the bishops devote their attention to inclusive language and questionable translations of improved texts, we're losing a gen­ eration of young people. It's almost scandalous to see how a small, stri­ dent group of feminists can have so much influence on the American clergy.

We have a serious crisis of faith and a disrespect for the integri­ ty of liturgical guidelines. Our bish­ ops need to break away from these silly distractions and begin to deal with the fundamental problems.

I pray for your success. The entire Church needs to be called to order again!

Wayne Beigel Steubenville, OH We think the reader will agree that while discussing and correcting inclusivized Scripture and texts used for Mass may be an unwelcome dis­ traction, tinkering with the language of worship is a fundamental prob­ lem. If the Church cannot speak clearly, her Truth cannot be trans­ mitted. AD0REMUS agrees with the writer that it is sad that so much energy must be spent on undoing damage to the Word of God and to the Church's worship caused by a few ideologues. -Ed.

NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE COUNCIL

. The existence of Adoremus gives this reader of your bulletin reason to think that at last, there may be s�meone willing to answer the ques­ t10ns that have plagued me since the days of Vatican II. Today's liturgy, in many cases, appears to be designed primarily to provide a stage for the many aspir­ mg amateur performers crowding the Sanctuary. No honest person can witness such abuses and still deny the need for reform, but where was the need at the time of The Council?

The first quarter century of my life was lived prior to the conclusion of Vatican Council II. I am unable to remember a single occasion when any spiritual need was not satisfied by the Church during those years.

What was it that required reform, and why? How was The Church deficient? In what way did She fail to teach, to rule and to sanctify Her members? I'm not sure these ques­ tions are able to be answered today, because of the ambiguity that has become such an inseparable part of our language, but would someone please try? How can a goal for reform be established without first knowing the mind of the Council?

Ted Pelicano New Hartford, NY Helping people to deepen their understanding of "the mind of the Council" is one of the principal objectives of Adoremus. Ed.

SMALL VARIATIONS IMPORTANT?

Recently I visited my son and (continued on page 6)

Adoremus Bulletin• Vol. 1, No. 4 February 1996

DOREMUS AGENDA "What is to be done?" (1st Council of Jerusalem) -Acts 21:22

WHERE DO WE STAND?

Standing or Kneeling-Which is the Innovation?

By Fr. Jerry Pokorsky

A

DOREMUS has been receiving reports from around the country about pastors encouraging parishioners to remain standing dur­ ing the Eucharistic Prayer. In some parishes, standing has been a "tradi­ tion" for some years. In other parish­ es, it is being introduced as the latest liturgical innovation. Standing dur­ ing the Eucharistic Prayer has been a common practice in seminaries throughout the United States for a decade or more.

But it is a practice that clearly violates the liturgical norms approved by the bishops of the United States and confirmed by the Vatican. Many bishops have appar­ ently turned a blind eye to this inno­ vation in individual parishes and seminaries. Many young priests have been trained in the practice and perhaps are not aware that this "tradi­ tion" is contrary to liturgical norms.

This may explain the widespread confusion among faithful Catholics.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), before the 1969 American adaptation, permits standing during the Eucharistic except during the Prayer Consecration. The GIRM, the offi­ cial book of liturgical legislation in the Church, reads that the people "should kneel at the consecration unless prevented by lack of space, large numbers, or other reasonable cause" (no. 21). But the GIRM per­ mits variations to accommodate the traditional sensibilities of Catholics in various regions. So the General Instruction adds that the "conference of bishops may adapt the actions and postures described in the Order of the Roman Mass to the usage of the peo­ ple, but these adaptations must corre­ spond to the character and meaning of each part of the celebration" (no. 21).

In the 1969 Appendix to the General Instruction for the Diocese of the United States of America, the bishops confirmed the time-honored posture of kneeling during the Fr. Jerry Pokorsky is a member of the Bulletin Editorial Committee.

ADOREMUS

American soldiers kneel during a Mass held in a stable before continuing the battle for Cherbourg in 1944.

Eucharistic Prayer: "...the people [should] kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, that is, before the Lord's Prayer" (no. 21). This ruling continues to have the force of liturgi­ cal law. It can change only if the American bishops officially approve, and if their decision is confirmed by

the Vatican.

At the June 1995 meeting of bishops, the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy accepted (conditionally) an amendment to the "American Adaptations" proposed by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin which would per­ mit standing during the consecration.

If this amendment had been accepted by the U.S. bishops and confirmed by

THE TEXT OF GIRM 21: AN AMERICAN ADAPTATION Much of the bishops' discussion last June of Action Item 3B, variations in the Order of Mass, concerned the posture of the people during the Eucharistic Prayer as specified in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM) #21 and as adapted by the NCCB in the GIRM Appendix; also the meaning of an amendment submitted by Cardinal Bernardin which was accepted by the BCL before the meeting. Texts of these two items are:

ADAPTATION OF GIRM #21

"Number 21 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal should be adapted so that the people should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the eucharistic prayer "unless prevented by the lack of space, the number of people present, or for some other good reason (GIRM, no. 21)" In these cases, the people should remain standing and bow as a sign of rever­ ence when the priest genuflects after the words of institution for the consecration of the bread and for the consecration of the wine. (Italicized portion is a modification from wording adopted in 1969.)"

AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY CARDINAL BERNARDIN

"Replace lines 13 to 19 [Note these are the lines quoted above] with "Number 21 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal should be adapted so that the people may kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the eucharistic prayer. However, following more ancient traditions and with preparatory cate­ chesis, a diocese or parish may establish the prac­ tice of standing reverently and attentively for the entire Eucharistic prayer. In these cases, the people bow as a sign of reverence when the priest genu­ flects after the words of institution for the consecra­ tion of the bread and for the consecration of the wine."

RESPONSE OF THE BCL

"The Committee ACCEPTS. Standing is already provided for in particular circumstances.

The Committee prefers its wording. See the propos­ al amending no. 21 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal."

the Vatican, it would have allowed individual bishops to permit standing during the Eucharistic Prayer. But several bishops voiced strong objec­ tions to the proposal, including Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston and Cardinal Adam Maida of Detroit.

Cardinal Law argued that it was irre­ sponsible to burden the people with further uncertainties in the matter of liturgical posture. Cardinal Maida also urged consistency. He argued that there should be one law or the other, but not the confusion of options. Under pressure, the liturgy committee withdrew the amendment and it never came to a vote.

But the 1995 National Meeting of Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions (FDLC), issued a reso­ lution urging "the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy to provide a mechanism, along with appropriate documentation, by which the National Conference of Catholic Bishops may discuss the issue of pos­ ture during the Eucharistic Prayer, for the purpose of reexamination of their 1969 decision or, at the very least, the reintroduction of the text withdrawn by the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy in June."

[Complete text of FDLC resolutions appears in this issue of AB.] The FDLC resolution to reopen the "standing/kneeling" question is self-contradictory. On the one hand, it states that the 1969 legislation approved by the U.S. bishops and confirmed by the Vatican "departs from the universal norm" in requir­ ing the faithful to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer. On the other

hand, it claims there is a "diversity in the posture of the assembly during the Eucharistic Prayer owing to dif­ ferent interpretations" of the GIRM which it apparently approves.

The FDLC admits that the "uni­ versal norm" is standing-except for the Consecration. Yet the FDLC con­ tends that the 1969 legislation 'departs from this universal norm' in requiring a uniform practice of kneel­ ing from the Sanctus to the Amen throughout the United States. Thus both the FDLC and its critics recog­ nize that the 1969 legislation requires kneeling.

What is meant by a "diversity" of postures based on "different inter­ pretations" is far less clear. Does the FDLC really believe "diversity" is preferable to uniform practice? If so, why? Why the insistence on making standing during the Consecration an official option for the Church in America? Whose "different interpre­ tations" about what?

Unfortunately, one cannot dis­ miss this illogical resolution as that of some marginal pressure group. In fact, the FDLC is a highly influential part of the liturgical establishment.

At the very least, the FDLC's vote approving this and several other trou­ blesome resolutions aimed at desacralization of the Mass reveals that a large number of liturgists intend to use every possible means to promote their own agenda for future liturgical legislation.

You can help. Write or fax a brief letter to your bishop today and calmly express your opinion. And keep praying.

PAGE 3

Adoremus Bulletin • Vol. I, No. 4 February 1996

Adoremus Bulletin • Vol. I, No. 4 February I 996

'11I•lril1P@JAGENDA STANDING OR KNEELING DURING THE CONSECRATION? SOME PARISH BULLETINS GO ASTRAY

By Joseph Fessio, S.J. One of the most useful sources of information in most parishes is its weekly bulletin. In many parishes the bulletin is no longer simply a calendar of events, but a mini-newsletter complete with "editorials."

Often, as in the bulletin of the Quebec parish noted here, it is used to explain liturgical practices; and the questions addressed may be important ones, as in this case. Unhappily, sometimes the parish bul­ letin misinforms. Fr. Fessio's comments show where this one went astray. -Ed. "Visitors or guests at our eucharists (especially when we celebrate our children's first communion) sometimes remark "but you don't kneel at the consecration."

Some might consider that an insignificant detail, but it really is not."

That's correct. It is not an insignificant detail. That is why the Church regulates the posture as well as the words of liturgical celebra­ tions. In this case, the rubric in force is from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), no. 21, requiring that people "should kneel at the Consecration unless prevented by lack of space, large numbers, or other reasonable cause."

This is the norm-and has been since at least 1201 A.D.-in the Roman Rite. The bishops of the United States of America asked for and received approval from Rome for the congregation to remain kneel­ ing throughout the Canon of the Mass (from the end of the Sanctus through the Great Amen) and from the Agnus Dei until the Postcommunion prayer. This remains the norm in the U.S. In fact, in June of 1995 at their annual summer meet­ ing, the U.S. bishops rejected a pro­ posal that kneeling at this time should be optional rather than mandatory.

"It has to do with the slow recovery of the importance of the eucharis­ tic prayer in the Mass. We are talking about the prayer that begins with "The Lord be with you," "Lift up your hearts" and ends with the Great Amen."

No. It has to do with the rapid loss of awareness of the importance of the consecration.

some plays are more important than

untrue. People generally do kneel, although the point during the prayer at which people kneel is not uniform as it is in the U.S. Kneeling, obvious­ ly, is still a universal gesture of rev­ erence.

"The eucharistic prayer is basical­ ly a prayer of praise and thanks­ giving (even if it includes an inter­ cessory part), and as a prayer of praise and thanksgiving it calls for the bodily posture of standing."

give thanks and praise to God" (Dn 6:11). Interestingly, this passage is considered by Jews to be the basis for the three regular times of prayer at the synagogue. Moreover, the Liturgy of the Eucharist, as is gener­ ally recognized, is rooted in the Jewish Berakah (Gk: eulogia, Lt: benedictio). The Hebrew root of Berakah means to genuflect or kneel, and there were genuflections in the developed Jewish form of this prayer.

The New Testament witness is

St. MaRk the EuangeUst CboRcb AiflmeR, Quebec MaN .21, 199S' Why don't we kneel at the consecration?

Visitors or guests at our eucharists (especially when we celebrate our children's first communion) sometimes remark "but you don't kneel at the consecration." Some might consider that an insignificant detail, but it really is not.

It has to do with the slow recovery of the importance of the eucharistic prayer in the Mass. We are talking about the prayer that begins with ''The Lord be with you," "Lift up your hearts" and ends with the Great Amen. This is one prayer. It has an integrity of its own; and it is important not to single out one moment or part (such as the moment or words of consecration) as more important than the rest. To underline that integrity it is best to take the same bodily posture during the entire prayer. The eucharistic prayer is basically a prayer of praise and thanksgiving (even if it includes an intercessory part), and as a prayer of praise and thanksgiving it calls for the bodily posture of standing.

Moreover it is a communal prayer, a prayer of the community even if it is proclaimed by the presider. As ·a communal prayer it calls for all to take the same bodily posture. At the heart of the sacrament of unity (which the eucharist is) we would not want to be doing different things.

It is true that, for a long time, we did not have this appreciation for the eucharistic prayer. The moment and words of consecration were given so much importance that they virtually eclipsed the rest of the eucharistic prayer. Bells would be rung, the choir would not sing, everyone would observe silence, all but the priest would be on their knees. While all this spoke of immense faith and devotion, the disadvantage of that was (in retrospect) that we tended to overlook the rest of that one prayer of which the words of consecration are "only" a part.

In view of this, the real question is not what you do during the words of consecra­ tion, but what is the best posture to take during the entire eucharistic prayer. What makes this prayer so important is that it is a brief summary of the Christian faith. If the church speaks its faith anywhere in the most authoritative way, then it is in the eucharistic prayer. That is also the reason why the acclamations during that prayer, by which we give our assent to the faith proclaimed, must be sung. It also explains why, during the festive seasons of the church, such as Easter and Christmas, a good part of that prayer is being sung.

"This is one prayer. It has an integrity of its own; and it is This is admittedly a somewhat long response to a simple question. On the other important not to single out one hand, the question touches on some basic issues of the faith we cherish. moment or part (such as the moment or words of consecration) as more important than the rest."

It is one prayer with an integrity Apparently the author now quite consistent with this. In Jesus' of its own. Just like a human body is others-which is why they find their thinks that some things in the Canon presence, people almost by instinct one body with an integrity of its own. way into the highlights. are more important than others. He knew they should kneel. "A leper But that does not mean that some parts aren't more important than oth­ "To underline that integrity it is implies-perhaps rightly, but incon­ came to him and knelt before him..." ers. Losing a hand is tragic; but it's best to take the same bodily pos­ sistently with his previous princi­ (Mt 8:2). "A ruler came in and knelt ple-that praise and thanksgiving are before him..." (Mt 9:18). "But [a ture during the entire prayer." not as serious as losing one's head.

The author offers no evidence more important than intercessory Canaanite woman] came and knelt The author is apparently opposed to all discrimination of the for this assertion; with reason, since prayer. Significantly, he does not before him..." (Mt 15:25). "A man sort that would claim that one ele­ there isn't any. Integrity might be mention adoration or worship. If he came up to him and kneeling before ment of a whole is more important better emphasized by one posture or is interested in the integrity of him said..." (Mt 17:14). "Then the than others. However, the author's by different postures, depending on wholes, he might reflect that the mother of the sons of Zebedee came bulletin is one document; but the the circumstances. Would the integri­ entire Mass is an act of worship of up to him, with her sons, and kneel­ ing before him she asked him for Mass schedule is more important ty of the conversation mentioned our saving God. But even on his own assump­ something" (Mt 20:20). "A man ran than a bake sale announcement. And above be diminished if the man knelt tions, his conclusion doesn't follow. up and knelt before him, and asked presumably the author's reflections down when he asked the question?

But, of course, if he insists on No one has ever shown that kneeling him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do on standing or kneeling are more important than an ad for a local pizza one posture throughout the whole is incompatible with praise and to inherit eternal life?'"(Mk I 0:17).

It may be objected that in all parlor on the back. A man might have Eucharistic Prayer, we have that thanksgiving. In fact, the inspired a long conversation with his beloved; already in the U.S.: kneeling. Some Word of God teaches us just the these cases it is a question of inter­ but if it contains the words "Will you American liturgical experts have opposite. The prophet Daniel says: cessory prayer. But there is plenty of marry me?", no one doubts where the claimed that kneeling during the con­ "And I knelt down on my knees that in the Canon, especially the relative importance lies. A football secration is no longer generally prac­ [rather emphatic! what else could he Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) game is a well-defined unity; but ticed in European churches. This is kneel down on?] three times a day to which had been exclusively used in PAGE4

the Western Church for 1400 years.

But even more significantly, kneeling was a favored posture of prayer for New Testament Christians. "Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed" (Acts 9:40). Paul, in his farewell to the Christians of Ephesus, "knelt down and prayed with them all" (Acts 20:36). Later on his trip to Jeresulem, as he leaves Tyre, "they all, with wives and children, brought us on our way till we were outside the city; and kneeling down on the beach we prayed and bade one anoth­ er farewell" (Acts 21:5). And in writ­ ing to the Ephesians Paul says "I bow my knees before the Father..." (Eph 3:14).

These examples cannot be reduced to merely intercessory prayer, much less be made evidence of the penitential character of kneel­ ing (another commonly heard simpli­ fication). Besides, we are positively exhorted by St. Paul to bend our knees at Jesus' Name (Phil 2: I 0)-so how much more before His Real Presence in the Eucharist, at the Consecration and thereafter, and par­ ticularly at Holy Communion?

"Moreover it is a communal prayer, a prayer of the community even if it is proclaimed by the presider. As a communal prayer it calls for all to take the same bodily posture. At the heart of the sacra­ ment of unity (which the eucharist is) we would not want to be doing different things."

Precisely. But our unity is not merely with those around us in the congregation at any particular Mass.

The "community" of which we are a part is the entire Church celebrating a common rite. The "sacrament of unity" unites us with the whole Church, not just our fellow parish­ ioners. This is why the "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" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Liturgy, para. 22, § I) so that "no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change any­ thing in the liturgy on his own authority" (Ibid., para 22, §2).

The canon of the Mass is a "communal prayer" in that the peo­ ple are to join their hearts to the prayer of the priest, which he offers as both the representative of Christ and in unity with the community­ that is, the whole Church, past, pre­ sent and future. This prayer is not simply the prayer of any particular assembly of people. The Eucharist is the re-presentation of the unique sac­ rifice of Christ by the priest who acts in the person of Christ, united with the entire community of believers­ of all times, everywhere. Thus if an ordained priest or bishop does not say the prayer, or if he does not say the words of institution prescribed by the Church, the bread and wine remain unchanged. On the other hand, if a priest prays this prayer even if no other person is present, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. That the sacramental action of an ordained priest or bishop is necessary to effect the Sacrifice of the Mass is the teach­ ing of the Catholic Church, which must be believed. No mere gathering of people can do it. It is important to understand this. Some theologians

and liturgists today deny this. Some say that our baptism makes us all equally "priests," and that the "hier­ archical priesthood" linked to ordina­ tion is unnecessary for a "eucharistic celebration." The Holy See has recently gone to great lengths to make clear the distinction between the "common priesthood" of all the baptized and the sacerdotal priest­ hood of an ordained man.

This distinction is further sym­ bolized by the difference in the pos­ ture of the priest who offers the sac­ rifice from the people on whose behalf he offers it.

"It is true that, for a long time, we did not have this appreciation for The the eucharistic prayer. moment and words of consecration were given so much importance that they virtually eclipsed the rest of the eucharistic prayer. Bells would be rung, the choir would not sing, everyone would observe silence, all but the priest would be on their knees."

The importance of the "moment and words of consecration" may have been exaggerated at some peri­ ods in the Church. But one thing was constant in East and West: an aware­ ness that something utterly unique was taking place during the Canon.

That is why as early as the 4th centu­ ry in the East, the railing separating the congregation from the clergy was raised, eventually becoming the iconostasis which completely hid the sacred action from the faithful.

It is important to mention this since an argument for standing not mentioned in this text but often heard is that the people stand during the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Eastern rite churches and in the U.S. Infantrymen kneel on the ground during a Mass near the Moselle River in France in March, Orthodox churches. To this it may be responded: a) the people were entire­ ly separated from the sanctuary; b) There is no evidence that people we give our assent to the faith pro­ narrative, is consecratory. the near-millenial tradition in the genera IIy ("we") tended to overlook claimed, must be sung. It also We also do not know exactly West is to kneel during the consecra­ the rest of the Canon of the Mass. explains why, during the festive where the Pacific Ocean ends and tion; and, c) it is liturgically and seasons of the church, such as San Francisco Bay begins. But that anthropologically indefensible to "In view of this, the real question is Easter and Christmas, a good part does not mean that we can't tell gen­ make such a change in such a central not what you do during the words of that prayer is being sung." erally where the boundary is. Some of consecration, but what is the tradition.

This is emphatically not what real boundaries are not subject to Special liturgical forms of rev­ best posture to take during the makes this prayer so important. mathematical precision. erence have been accorded to the entire eucharistic prayer."

(Again the author violates his own But the fact that one may not be Since the premises are false, the principle that nothing in the Canon is able to pinpoint the moment of tran­ consecrated host at the time of conse­ cration since the 13th century, which conclusion ("in view of this") is not more important than anything else.) substantiation to the millisecond may well represent a development of does not mean that there is no precise liturgical understanding. Surely those moment at which it occurs. It cannot who could build such magnificent be a gradual, "evolutionary" process.

We are positively exhorted by St. Paul to bend the gothic cathedrals precisely through It is not all bread, then mostly bread knee at Jesus' name-so how much more before His the inspiration of the Mass as they but partly Christ's Body, then mostly understood it might have at least as Christ's Body but still partly bread, Real Presence in the Eucharist... good a sense of what is liturgically and finally all Christ's Body. There is appropriate as we who have not yet a time when it is entirely bread; and demonstrated that we can consistent­ demonstrated. The "real question"­ As a "brief summary of the Christian there is a time when it is entirely ly rise above the mediocre in art or at least as the Council saw it-is how faith," which it is (though the Creed Christ's Body. There is no time when we can more fully, consciously, and does this more explicitly) it could be it is not one or the other--even if we architecture. actively participate in the Mass. To proclaimed by anyone. What makes can't say with complete precision "While all this spoke of immense think that the proposed innovation this prayer important is that when a where the boundary is. faith and devotion, the disadvan­ will bring this about is naive. bishop or priest utters it, with the req­ That is not to say we cannot tage of that was (in retrospect) that Certainly it would not pass the uisite conditions, something hap­ determine when in the Canon tran­ we tended to overlook the rest of Conciliar standard for innovations, pens: the bread and wine become the substantiation occurs. No one con­ that one prayer of which the words which should only be made when Body and Blood of Christ and tends that it occurs before the epic/e­ of consecration are "only" a part." "the good of the Church genuinely Christ's life, death, and resurrection sis (the prayer imploring the Holy It did speak of "immense faith and certainly requires them" (Vatican become really, sacramentally pre­ Spirit-or God in the Roman and devotion," which is one reason II Decree on the Sacred Liturgy, para. sent. No "summary of the Christian Canon-to "come upon these gifts to faith," as such, can do this. why Mass attendance was so high 32, emphasis added). make them holy"). The very words of the epic/esis indicate that the sancti­ and conversions so numerous prior to SUMMARY COMMENTS fication of the gifts has not yet taken the liturgical confusion of the past 30 "What makes this prayer so Although this author does not place. In the Roman Canon-the years. The panoply of changes important is that it is a brief sum­ intended to foster a more active par­ mary of the Christian faith. If the make the claim, others, relying on the canon which had been the only canon ticipation of the congregation have church speaks its faith anywhere in same erroneous principles do: that of the Roman Rite for over 1400 demonstrably not succeeded. They the most authoritative way, then it we do not know exactly when the years-and in the additional canons have resulted in a loss of a sense of is in the eucharistic prayer. That is bread and wine become Chri t's approved since the Council, the epi­ the sacred and an empirically verifi­ also the reason why the acclama­ Body and Blood and that the entire clesis occurs immediately before the tions during that prayer, by which Canon, and not just the institution institution narrative. Even if one able loss of faith and devotion.

-

1945

were to claim that it is the epiclesis which effects the change, it would have to take place at the end of the epiclesis-which is precisely where the rubrics for the Roman Rite require the people to kneel if they are not already kneeling.

But if the change of substance hasn't occurred by the end of the institution narrative, then the Church in the liturgy which is a norm of her belief has been not only encouraging but positively legislating idolatry: the adoration of not-yet-consecrated bread. (When in the early 13th centu­ ry some priests began to hold the host aloft while reciting the words of con­ secration, the bishop of Paris ordered, in I 210. that the host should be held breast-high before the conse­ cration, and only after the consecra­ tion should it be lifted high enough to be seen by all "lest (as a London synod of 1215 put it) a creature be adored instead of the Creator."

We are left with the conclusion that any defensible theory about when the transformation of the ele­ ments takes place must locate it somewhere between the end of the epiclesis and the end of the institu­ tion narrative. This is a dramatic moment within the unity of the canon. Popular piety and liturgical norm are at one in recognizing this­ let us bend the lrnee before this great myster) of faith.

Fr. Fessio is editor of Ignatius Pf'l'ss.

PAGES

-

-

Adoremus Bulletin • Vol. I, No. 4 February 1996

On 'Catechesis' for Liturgical Change

B

ishop Trautman and the FDLC call for "catechesis" to prepare people for changes in the liturgy.

But the late Ralph A. Keifer, for­ mer acting director of the ICEL Secretariat and general editor of the 1973 ICEL Missal, had a dif­ ferent idea: "The generation of people old enough to have experienced the ritual changes in the church often complain that nobody ade­ quately 'explained the changes.'

"But because the very nature of the changes was to place the church on a journey of discovery, it is for us to discover what the changes mean in the very living of that journey. . .. To say that we 'wait in eager hope for his coming' is to say that we are willing to look to a future where we will find God. To explore the 'meaning of the mass today,' then, is inevitably, to explore its possibilities for mean­ ing."

-From The Mass in Time of Doubt: The Meaning of the Mass for Catholics Today (National Association of Pastoral Musicians, Washington, DC, 1983, p.64. (Quotation appears exactly as in original text.)

K

eifer's book described what he called the "revolution" in Catholic worship following the Council. The passage above sug­ gests that the liturgical establish­ ment may want to test-market their proposed revisions of the Mass as soon as possible so that the "journey of discovery" of the meaning of the Mass can proceed unhampered by the approval of the bishops and the Holy See. (In addition to his ICEL involvement, Keifer was profes­ sor of liturgy at Notre Dame and later at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago until his death in 1987.)

LETTERS

---

(continued from page 2)

family in Indianapolis. They belong to a new parish. I've attended Mass at several churches in the area of my home. Some have more innovations than others. I've gone to two Masses in my son's parish. One on Sunday morning with an excellent choir.

One in the evening with guitar and folk-singing (a good vocalist).

After coming back home, I thought of how much at home I felt there, not because everything was as I would have chosen, but because it was good to worship God with well­ intentioned people-as I do at home as well. The important thing is that the Son of God resides in our taber­ nacles. If we are comfortable with Him at church and in our lives, how much difference does it make about small variations in liturgy?

Mary Long Spencer, IN understands the readers concern that preoccupation with details of the liturgy may obscure the important thing: the Real Presence of Christ. This is a legiti­ mate concern. Obviously, there are legitimate variations in very rever­ ent celebrations of Mass. Some Masses will have excellent choirs, some have none. Some will be in English or French or Spanish, some in Latin. Liturgical innovations or variations become a very serious problem, however, when they obscure Christ's sacramental pres­ ence. Unfortunately, some liturgists have become so preoccupied with introducing innovations into the Mass that this happens. - Ed.

ADOREMUS

PAGE6

BISHOP TRAUTMAN

(continued from page J)

which were sent by the CDF to the BCL following consultations early in 1995. These norms have evidently not been released to anyone outside the BCL, not even to bishops. The norms or principles of translation have been the subject of much dis­ cussion and debate in recent years, occasioned principally by concern over politicized translations; and a revision of the 1969 document known as Comme le prevoit is report­ edly underway. ] [Bishop Trautman reviewed the of the discussions revised Sacramentary at the June 1995 NCCB meetings.] " ...The bishops spent more than a day discussing the various proposals presented by the Committee on the Liturgy. Most of the time was taken up by bishops whose amendments were rejected and who asked the NCCB to reverse the decision of the Liturgy Committee. In the end, the NCCB decided to accept the recommenda­ tions of the Liturgy Committee.

considered. The Liturgy Committee will also be sending the bishops a number of adaptations for the Holy Week rites as well as the texts of Masses proper to the Unites States, that is, the American saints and blesseds and the Masses for the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving.

These materials will all be consid­ ered by the Bishops in June. The remaining two segments of the Sacramentary, Segments V II and

with degrees in biblical studies are carefully going through the text and will be proposing some revisions to the Congregation. I hope that this work for the Sunday volume of the Lectionary will be completed by the end of this year."

Creative "catechesis" necessary on liturgical changes

[Ed. Note: Bishop Trautman mentions that catechesis will be nee-

are to give advice and answer ques­ tions.

'Seize the Day'

"We must be pastoral, but we do no one a favor when we do not give clear and correct answers or when we limit legitimate options and diversity.

My challenge to you today and in the days ahead is to continue to develop your knowledge of the Church's liturgy, to catechize yourselves so

Liturgy Committee 'MNJnderstood'

"The Liturgy committee with­ drew its proposal regarding the pos­ ture of the congregation during the Eucharistic Prayer. It quickly became apparent that it was misunderstood, and rather than have all the other material in the Appendix to the General Instruction rejected, it seemed better to withdraw the pro­ posal. I would note that the Committee was not changing the posture, but only attempting to pro­ vide a sign of reverence when, for legitimate reasons, it was not possi­ ble for the people to kneel. This means that there will be no change in the present discipline.

"The bishops voted on the vari­ ous items by written ballot, but because there were not a sufficient number of bishops present, it was necessary to send ballots by mail to absent bishops. When the voting was completed, it was announced that all the liturgical items had been approved by the required two-thirds affirmative vote of all the [de jure] Latin Rite members of the NCCB...."

[Despite Bishop Trautman's statement that "there will be no change,"the FDLC resolutions from the meeting he addressed explicitly call for change. See FDLC Resolutions reprinted in this issue.]

New Sacrame,itary ''by the beginning of the Third Millennium"

"The bishops will shortly receive Segment V containing the Proper of Saints and Segment V I containing Holy Week, the Antiphonal of Volume I, and other miscellaneous texts of Volume of the Sacramentary that have not yet been

Mother Teresa kneels in prayer at the National Shrine in Washington, D.C.

V III will be presented to the bishops for approval in November of 1996. "...Once all the texts for Volume I are approved, they will be sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments for

"Catechize yourselves so that you can effectively catechize others as the new books are introduced." confirmation. It may be optimistic to hope that we will have !he confirma­ tion of the Sunday volume of the Sacramentary before the beginning of the Third Millennium. This would be a marvelous way to begin the new millennium-with a new book of beautiful and inspiring prayers for the celebration of the eucharist-a book vastly superior to the present Sacramentary.

"Although I cannot go into details about the Lectionary for Mass, I can tell you that the discus­ sions with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are progressing and that I and several other bishops

essary before the introduction of the new Sacramentary and Lectionary.] "...I have no specific ideas on how this catechesis should be carried out. But I do know that, in your dis­ cussions at the regional and national level, you will help to provide the bishops with creative and effective options for this very important task.

"I am sure you realize that the Secretariat in Washington daily receives calls from individuals who are concerned about liturgical mat­ ters. Often they are distressed by something that is going on in their own parish. It is the policy of the Secretariat to encourage these people to call their diocesan liturgy office or to write to their bishops. It often hap­ pens that they do not receive an answer that they find acceptable from the diocesan office and so call Washington. In some cases, they are given incorrect information at the local level which represents the per­ sonal desires of the individual in the liturgy office, but does not corre­ spond to the decisions of the NCCB or the current liturgical law. I men­ tion this because catechesis is not just for the clergy and people 'out there.' It is also necessary for us who

that you can effectively catechize others as the new books are intro­ duced. We have great opportunities before us in the last days of the twen­ tieth century. At the risk of using an ancient Latin phrase, carpe diem­ we must 'seize the day' for a renewed effort to make the liturgy the source of our faith and its highest expres­ sion.

"In addition to the major task of the revision of the Sacramentary, the Committee on the Liturgy and the Secretariat staff are engaged in a variety of projects, including a posi­ tion paper on cremation, guidelines for televised Masses, the approval of an Hispanic Lectionary, and the for­ mation of a task force to study art, architecture, and liturgical environ­ ment. If you have any specific ques­ tions about the work of the Secre­ tariat or the projects currently in process, I would refer you to the written report presented by the staff."

[Bishop Trautman closed his remarks by thanking the liturgists for their work despite difficulties and assured them of the BCL's and his own commitment to "the on-going liturgical reform."]

r--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,

ADOREMUS SOCIETY FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE SACRED LITURGY P.O. Box 5858, Arlington, VA 22205 (703) 241-5858 Dear ADOREMUS, I am encouraged by what I have seen, and I want to help with your important work.

Please keep my name on your list. Enclosed is my donation of: __ $100

__ $50

__ $25

__ $15

__other

__ My donation is $15 or more. Please enter my subscription to Adoremus Bulletin. __ I would like to send a gift subscription(s) to (List names and addresses on separate sheet. A donation of $15 is enclosed for each subscription.) __ Please send me more information about ADOREMUS. Name .Address City

__________ State

(ADOREMUS

Zip ____

is a registered non-profit 501 (c)(3) organization. Donations are tax deductible.)

AB296

I I I I I I I I I I I

L--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------J

Adoremus Bulletin • Vol. I, No. 4 February 1996

Liturgists Plan Your Future

(continued from page I)

men and reinstating ex-priests, etc., purported­ ly as a means of "solving" the "vocation cri­ sis."

Resource Material for Effective Implementation of the Revised Lectionary and Sacrarnentary (PS 1995 D)

It is the position of the delegates to the 1995 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions that the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions in conjunction with the Secretariat of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy develop and make available resource material to facilitate effective imple­ mentation of the revised Lectionary and Sacramentary. a) these resources should include, but not be limited to, commentaries, study guides, parish bulletin inserts and video presentations; , b) these resources may be developed by the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions in conjunction with the Bishops' Committee on Liturgy or with publishers; c) these resources should be made avail­ able to bishops, pastors, worship offices and commissions throughout the Unites States as far as possible in advance of implementation.

(Passed +2.497) AB Comment: Again, this at first sounds rea­ sonable, but.... The proposed revisions have not yet been accepted in final form and must be confirmed by Rome before they may be legiti­ mately used in the Church's liturgy. Getting implementation materials out "as far as possi­ ble in advance of implementation" is a way of forcing Rome's hand. For example, the Canadian Bishops published an "inclusive lan­ guage" lectionary claiming they thought they needed no permission. Because Canada was already using unapproved Scripture texts, Rome permitted them to continue doing so, at least on an interim basis. Some U.S. liturgists now claim that if the unapproved texts can be used in Canada, the U.S. should be allowed to use them too.

of even the smallest quantity of alcohol has been a serious pastoral concern of the Latin Church during the past decade; Whereas the presence of even a minute amount of gluten in altar breads or alcohol in wine can be extremely harmful to such per­ sons; Whereas the June 19, 1995, circular letter of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to presidents of episcopal conferences provides new norms concerning permission to use low-

free altar breads, and b) the prescription of norm III D of the circular letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith be abrogated. (Passed +2.711) AB Comment: Significantly, the FDLC con­ cludes in advance what the bishops' desire will be "after further study"-that is, to "abrogate" the recent permissive ruling of the Holy See in accommodating priests who are alcoholics or have celiac disease. The Vatican statement also prohibited ordination of men who already have

Norms Regarding Sufferers of Celiac Disease and Alcoholism (RIC 1995 F)

Whereas the medical condition of persons suffering from Celiac disease, alcoholism, or another condition which prevents the ingestion

Posture During the Eucharistic Prayer (RIC 1995 G)

I

Lippi, Filippino. The Adoration of the Child. Ca' d'Oro, Venice, Italy.

gluten altar bread and mustum for such per­ sons; Whereas norm III D of the circular letter states that "candidates for the priesthood who are affected by Celiac disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to Holy Orders"; The delegates to the 1995 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions are resolved that the insufficiency of the new norms in addressing the medical conditions of the above-named sufferers is a matter of sig­ nificant and immediate concern to them; they urge the National Conference of Catholic Bishops after further study to communicate to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith their desire that a) the norm concerning low-gluten altar breads be changed to no-gluten breads, and the addition of a binding agent such as xanthum gum be permitted in the preparation of gluten-

these problems. Predictably, the Holy See's pastoral gesture was not received with grati­ tude in "liberal" Catholic circJes. In fact, it was greeted with cries of outrage.

This FDLC Resolution calling for "abro­ gation" of the Vatican ruling (including, obvi­ ously, its prohibition of ordination of men who cannot ingest bread or wine) is part of a con­ tinuing attack on the matter of the Eucharist.

The resolution is entirely consistent with the opinion of some influential liturgists that the Church's insistence on bread and wine is a sort of ecological/cultural imperialism. (For exam­ ple, in The Preparatory Rites: A Case Study in Liturgical Ecology by ICEL members, Sr. Kathleen Hughes, RSCJ, Edward Foley and Gilbert Osdiek, the authors say that "...the Western bias for hosts and grape wine as the only acceptable materials for Eucharist symbolizes not only the dominance of a specific culture but also of a specific ecosys-

'NOBLE AND DURABLE' BAGGIE?

n his article "Mass in Ordinary", Commonweal journalist Paul Elie gave this account of his experience of the Mass in Central Park during Pope John Paul II's visit to the United States: "For Communion hundreds of priests scattered through the crowd, each accompanied by a Boy Scout who sheltered him from the rain with a yel­ low-and-white umbrella. No umbrella came our way, though: I received from a Hispanic priest who, lacking a chalice, proffered the sacrament from a sand­ wich baggie."

(Commonweal, Nov 17, 1995, p. 10)

"In the rite of preparation, a very schizo­ phrenic ritual now shapes the way the commu­ nity thinks about creation, their role in its preservation or sacrifice.... Further reform will require consideration of the 'choice of ele­ ments integral to the local ecosystem,' removal of those things which create boundaries and separate the community from this ritual and changing it into 'a profoundly simple action the bringing of this-worldly food, by a this-world­ ly community, for our good and the good of all this world."' (p. 38)

By contrast, Fr. Augustine diNoia, OP, Exececutive Director of the secretariat of NCCB's Doctrine Committee, compared the requirement that only men can validly receive Holy Orders to the necessity for bread and wine to constitute a valid Eucharist

The Publication of Liturgical Texts (PS 1995 E)

It is the position of the delegates to the 1995 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions that the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions' Board of Directors request the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy to require that liturgical publishers in the United States follow the layout presented by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy especially in the following areas: loca­ tion of page breaks at a natural point in the text, location of options in a place that will facilitate their use, and similar aspects of lay­ out and design, and to test the layout of these texts with priests, deacons, and other leaders of prayer to ensure the ease of use of future pub­ lications and new editions of current texts.

(Passed +1.90) AB Comment: Why does the FDLC want to require absolute conformity to ICEL's layout when the texts have not yet been approved?

Two noteworthy points here: 1) FDLC wants to emphasize "facilitating options" and 2) advance "testing" the ICEL "layout" is a means of getting texts into use before the required approval by the Holy See. Again, as noted above, the objective is to "make a path by walking on it." This familiar tactic of forc­ ing authorities to confirm what is already being done has been very useful to liturgical reform­ ers in the past.

tern... (p. 24)

Adoremus Bulletin readers may recall the discussion at the NCCB meet­ ing concerning the proposed use of bas­ kets as altar vessels, and about what constitutes "noble and durable" material to be used for Communion vessels (see "No One Thinks Baskets are Sinister," AB January 1996, p. 5). At that meeting, Liturgy Committee chairman Bishop Donald Trautman had dismissed con­ cerns about the appropriateness of using baskets to contain consecrated Hosts by noting that baskets had been used for this purpose at a papal Eucharistic Congress he had attended in Munich years ago-implying that this occur-

rence somehow constituted papal approval for a liturgical innovation.

Whatever the reason for using a dis­ posable plastic sandwich bag to contain the Body of Christ at the papal Mass Mr. Elie attended, it seems unlikely that the Holy Father knew about it, or that he would describe the ubiquitous baggie as either "noble" or "durable."

St. Maximilian Kolbe offered "make-do" Masses at Auschwitz. But it would be preposterous to recognize them as liturgical models, although, in context, the memory brings tears to the eye.

Whereas the 1969 edition of the Roman Missal for the first time included directives concerning postures and gestures of he congre­ gation; Whereas that missal prescribes standing during the eucharistic prayer except at the con­ secration, when kneeling is prescribed "unless prevented by the lack of space, the number of people present, or some other good reason;" Whereas the present U.S. discipline regarding posture during the eucharistic prayer approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in November I 969 departs from the universal norm by continuing the practice that was generally observed prior to the promulgation of the revised missal, name­ ly, kneeling during the eucharistic prayer from the conclusion of the Sanctus to the Great Amen; Whereas the responses of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops members to a January 1992 survey were evenly divided on the question of standing or kneeling as a pos­ ture for the eucharistic prayer; Whereas in there U.S. there is now diver­ sity in the posture of the assembly during the eucharistic prayer owing to different interpre­ tations of number 21 of the Appendix to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal; Whereas there has never been a thorough review and/or study of posture during the eucharistic prayer by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops nor an examination of the theological and liturgical implications of this for our understanding of the eucharist; The delegates to the I 995 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions are resolved that the withdrawal of the new wording of no. 21 of the Appendix to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal for the Dioceses of the United States of America, proposed for the approval of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in June 1995, is a matter of significant and immediate con­ cern to them; they urge the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy to provide a mecha­ nism along with appropriate documentation by which the National Conference of Catholic Bishops may discuss the issue of posture dur­ ing the eucharistic prayer, for the purpose of reexamination of their 1969 decision or, at the very least, the reintroduction of the text with­ drawn by the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy in June. (Passed +2.727) AB comment: Again, the orthographical odd­ ities are in the original. "Great Amen" is capi­ talized; "eucharistic prayer" is lower case.

The FDLC clearly wants to change the normal posture for the Eucharistic Prayer.

While they note the absence of a thorough study of the "theological and liturgical impli­ cations," they do not recommend such a study-rather, they "urge" bishops to change the norm-though only after being supplied with "appropriate documentation" presumably from the non-existent study.

This Resolution implies that the existence of a "diversity" of practice or of interpretation of the applicable norms requires that such diversity be formally legitimized. Does the FDLC believe it is authorized to interpret a liturgical norm to mean anything other than what it plainly says?

The Resolution seems confident that rein­ troducing the subject to the NCCB would lead the bishops to advocate standing during the Consecration. Their confidence may well be justified. But BCL Chairman Bishop Donald Trautman stated in his address to the same FDLC convention that no change in posture for the Eucharistic Prayer was contemplated by the bishops; that the amendment the BCL accepted only intended to specify that a "sign of reverence" be made at the Consecration if one was not kneeling. In fact, when this amendment was debated at the June 1995 NCCB meeting, such serious questions were raised by bishops about changing the norm to permit standing during the Consecration that Bishop Trautman withdrew the amendment before it came to a vote. Who is confused?

PAGE 7

...

Adoremus Bulletin• Vol. I, No. 4 February 1996

WHEN IS THE "RITE" THING THE WRONG THING?

Even Well-Intentioned Exceptions to Liturgical Rules May Cause More Harm Than Good

M

any Catholic worshippers have become very confused by the introduction of standing during tqe Consecration.

Many people are concerned about sometimes militant insistance on this change in posture during the Eucharistic Prayer on the part of some parish liturgists j and pastors. .

Other stories in this issue of <U AB will, we hope, help to answer ;;: some questions, perhaps to raise other questions, and to encourage faithful Catholics. Our intent is to provide helpful information about the liturgical norms actually in effect now, as well as to provide some insight into the thinking of liturgists who have become increasingly insistent that Catholics must cease kneeling in reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

Still more confusing and dis­ tressing than professional litur­ gist's ideas, however, are cases in which an unexpected change in the liturgy seems to come from an unexpected and trusted source, such as a bishop. Reports of such instances are appearing with increasing frequency.

Even when bishops are pre­ sent at a Mass, and may even be principal celebrants, occasions of serious bending-and sometimes overt breaking-of liturgical laws have become common. If anyone complains, liturgists too often justify an unauthorized change by invoking the authority of the bishop-or even the Pope-who celebrated the Mass and, since he did not object, seems to have given his tacit approval. This usually works. Bishops seldom do object. (Although in most cases the planner of the problem rite was not the bishop himself, he may even believe himself forced to defend a practice which he may actually disapprove.)

explanation was offered. Most people followed the directive, even though some later said they were confused and felt very uncomfortable about it. A group of Missionary of Charity Sisters who were present, however, knelt, as

gregations standing at Masses for no good rea­ son and he is very opposed to it. I want to stress that this was a special, one-off directive to suit the special circumstances," Fr. Merson said.

ible to the congregation, and would not have obscured anyone's view of the Consecration.

If concern for people's view was the pri­ mary reason for the directive, an explanation could have been printed in the program to avoid misunderstanding. In the present state of uncertainty and conflict over recent proposals for massive and rapid liturgical "revisions," few of which seem to be motivated by a genuine desire to increase reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, many Catholics could easily misunder­ stand such a directive, especially when it apparently has episcopal approval.

There is evidence that the uneasiness experienced by some members of the congregation at St. Mary's may have some basis in fact. Kathy Carey, liturgy coordinator for St. Mary's Cathedral, told the AB reporter that standing during the Eucharistic Prayer is a "sign of respect." Respect, of course, is not the same as reverence or ado­ ration or worship. But this is one of the standard arguments of liturgists who also claim that the altar of sacrifice should be called a "communion table"; that the Mass is essentially a "table fel­ lowship"; a "shared meal"; that worshippers are the "gathered assembly"; that the priest is merely a "presider" over the assembly; that it is the assembly which communally creates "eucharist" (with a small "e"); and who are convinced that calling God "Father" and using masculine pronouns are a sign of the "oppres­ sive patriarchy" which must be systematically eliminated.

ithout questioning this explanation for the issuance of such an explicit direc­ tive, nor the authority or good inten­ tions of either the archbishop or his staff, two puzzling questions remain.

First, would the altar really be invisible to the congregation unless they stood? The plan of St. Mary's, a Cathedral built in the "con­ temporary" architectural style with the altar raised on a stage-like platform surrounded on three sides by wedge shaped blocks of pews, was intentionally designed to make the altar visible from as many perspectives as possible.

In this objective the design is successful. From the seating plan, it is also clear that the concel­ ebrating priests might have been situated in blocks of pews on either side of the altar, which would have made all the celebrants vis-

ishops who are deeply concerned about helping Catholics to deepen their experi­ ence of the Mass, who hope both to increase people's understanding of the rites of the Church and foster vitality in participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass-all of which were objectives of the Second Vatican Council-may not be wholly aware of the neg­ ative effect some liturgical innovations (and some liturgists) are having on the faith of thou­ sands of Catholics. Many bishops (who, obvi­ ously, rarely see the liturgy from the perspec­ tive of the pews) may not yet clearly compre­ hend that permissive toleration of "progres­ sive" liturgical practices has not yet had the effect of encouraging greater devotion to Christ or of promoting more genuine unity among the Catholic faithful.

But this directive was a departure from Archbishop Levada's habitual practice, Father Merson told the reporter.

"As a matter of fact, he has made com­ ments to the effect that he has witnessed con-

i

!

O

ne recent instance of a confusing liturgi­ cal directive took place at the Mass at St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco on October 24, 1995. The occasion was the wel­ coming of Archbishop William Levada as the new coadjutor archbishop of San Francisco.

Archbishop John Quinn was the principal celebrant of the Mass. Concelebrating, in addi­ tion to Archbishop Levada, was Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, the Vatican's represen­ tative to the United States. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony also was in attendance at the Mass.

The printed program read, "Please remain standing during the Eucharistic Prayer." No

Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption in San Francisco usual.

As a result of reports from distressed par­ ticipants in the Mass, AB sent letters of inquiry to Archbishops Quinn, Cacciavillan and Levada on November 9, noting that the liturgi­ cal directives are to kneel and asking about the unusual directive printed in the bulletin. No response was received to the letters, and a sub­ sequent telephone call to the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington was not returned.

A reporter reached Archbishop Levada's secretary, Father Thomas Merson, who told AB that Archbishop Levada himself had issued the directive in order that everyone present could view the altar at the time of the Consecration.

There were 500 priests and about 60 dea­ cons attending, Father Merson said. The litur­ gy requires that concelebrating priests stand for the Eucharistic Prayer. The priests filled the two center sections of the cathedral and, according to Fr. Merson, Archbishop Levada was concerned that the congregation of 3,000 people would be unable to see the altar with all those priests standing.

W

B

=>-

Jj

.

J .... · · L: · .·.

"$!'---

(Please remain sta.nding during the Eucharistic Prayer)

Memorial Acdamation

•J

Seating Plan for St. Mary's Cathedral PAGE 8

F

Portion of Program Directing the Congregation to Stand