[Article] Illicit omissions and additions in Eucharistic Prayers – Part 1

Before anything else, ‘let us be clear here: every aspect of the celebration must be carefully tended to (space, time, gestures, words, objects, vestments, song, music…) and every rubric must be observed. Such attention would be enough to prevent robbing the assembly of what is owed to it; namely, the paschal mystery celebrated according to the ritual that the Church sets down.

But even if the quality and the proper action of the celebration were guaranteed, that would not be enough to make our participation full’ (Desiderio Desideravi, 23) because, ‘the power and the efficacy of the sacred liturgy do not consist merely in the newness and variety of its elements, but in a deeper communion with the mystery of salvation made actual and operative in the liturgical function.

In this way alone are the faithful, in their profession of one faith and outpouring of one prayer, enabled to follow out their salvation and be in communion with their brethren (Circular Letter of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship Addressed to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences, [27.04.1973], 19).

Therefore, ‘it must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation, there have been a number of abuses that have been a source of suffering for many.

A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church’s great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations that are often completely inappropriate’ (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 52).

Warning against what he called ‘spiritual worldliness,’ Pope Francis (Desiderio Desideravi, 17; Evangelii Gaudium, 93-97) pinpointed ‘Gnosticism and neo-Pelagianism as two versions connected between themselves that feed this spiritual worldliness.

The first shrinks Christian faith into a subjectivism that “ultimately keeps one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings.” The second cancels out the role of grace and “leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyses and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.”’

Simply put, whiles it cannot be lost on us that God is not of disorder (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33), mechanical liturgy also turns its back to the Holy Spirit ‘who blows where He desires’ (cf. Jn. 3:8).

Thanks to the media, which, even though in its substantial goodness, is often a victim and facilitator of liturgical abuses, makes us more aware of the worrying degree of liturgical corruption that needs urgent confrontation.

Recently in Ghana and Nigeria, the Church has been trending for the wrong liturgical reasons, to the extent that the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria had to release a strong worded statement to admonish the Local Ordinaries and their entire Presbyterate.

ADVERTISEMENT

And aside from the Catholic faithful who questioned the survival of profound Catholic-theological identity, some Protestants even worried the most and proposed some corrections because, in the most sacred part of their hearts, they appreciate the Catholic Church as the last resort and protector of proper Christian worship and identity.

It is encouraging, therefore, that the entire people of God are becoming much more aware of OUR collective duty without necessarily leaving it to a Part of the Whole.

Apart from some few excesses, that was a sign of liturgical attentiveness, concern, and growth on the part of the entire faithful because, as the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament encourages: ‘In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected.

This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism. Any Catholic, whether priest, deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop, the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 183-184; Pastor bonus, 63; CIC Can. 1417 § 1) without weaponization of facts.

Related to the ‘recently discovered’ liturgical challenges, the Church (Vicesimus Quintus Annus, 13; Redemptionis Sacramentum, 51) already notes that: ‘On occasion there have been noted illicit omissions or additions, rites invented outside the framework of established norms; postures or songs that are not conducive to faith or to a sense of the sacred; abuses in the practice of general absolution; confusion between the ministerial priesthood, linked with ordination, and the common priesthood of the faithful, which has its foundation in baptism.

It cannot be tolerated that certain priests should take upon themselves the right to compose Eucharistic Prayers or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture.

Initiatives of this sort, far from being linked with the liturgical reform as such, or with the books which have issued from it, are in direct contradiction to it, disfigure it and deprive the Christian people of the genuine treasures of the Liturgy of the Church.

It is for the bishops to root out such abuses, because the regulation of the Liturgy depends on the bishop within the limits of the law (SC 22:1) and because “the life in Christ of His faithful people in some sense is derived from and depends upon him”’ (SC 41).’

Hopefully, we learn and move on as privileged faithful, entrusted with a Sacred Tradition, to be Organic Dispensers and not Willful (Re)inventors (cf. GIRM 24; SC 22:3). We ask, however, are we going to hibernate after the storm, or are we going to proactively (re)consider the fundamentals? ‘It is necessary to know how the Holy Spirit acts in every celebration.

The art of celebrating must be in harmony with the action of the Spirit. Only in this way will it be free from the subjectivisms that are the fruit of individual tastes dominating. Only in this way will it be free from the invasion of cultural elements that are taken on without discernment and that have nothing to do with a correct understanding of inculturation.

Finally, it is necessary to understand the dynamics of symbolic language, its particular nature, and its efficacy’ (Desiderio Desideravi, 49). Thus, ‘because the liturgical text is a ritual sign, it is a means of oral communication. However, for the believers who celebrate the sacred rites the word is also a mystery’ (Magnum Principium, 5).

Now, concerning ‘the Eucharistic Prayer, which is of its very nature the “culminating point of the whole celebration”, is a “prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification” whose purpose is “that the whole congregation of the faithful may unite itself with Christ in proclaiming the wondrous things of God and in offering the sacrifice” (GIRM 54).

This prayer is offered by the ministering priest, who is the intermediary, translating both the voice of God addressed to the people, and the voice of the people lifting up the soul to God. It alone must be heard, while the congregation gathered to celebrate the sacred liturgy remains devoutly silent.

In this Prayer, over and above the CATECHETICAL INDICATIONS, intended to highlight the particular characteristic of any celebration, there supervenes the element of thanksgiving for the universal mystery of salvation or for some particular aspect of this which, in accordance with the day, the feast, the season, or the rite, is being celebrated (GIRM 55).

For this reason, in order that those taking part in the Eucharist may better render thanks to God and bless Him, already in the new Roman Missal “there has been an increase in the provision of Prefaces, either taken from the ancient tradition of the Roman Church or now composed for the first time, by means of which particular aspects of the mystery of salvation are brought out and more and richer motives for thanksgiving are offered” (Circular Letter of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship Addressed to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences (27.04.1973), 8; Paul VI, Apost. Const. Missale Romanum, [3.04.1969], 219) to be chosen from.

It is expected then that ‘only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used that are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. “It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers” or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals’ (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 51; ClC Can. 899 § 3; Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests, 49, Vicesimus quintus annus, 13; Inaestimabile donum, 5).

Necessarily, while there is no space for commentaries in the Eucharistic Prayers, in the Introduction of the Mass and during the Prayer of the Faithful, there is always accommodating space for other explicit intentions to be proffered or for interjected ‘personal expressions’, as deemed fit by the priest celebrant (cf. GIRM 50, 70-71).

To be Continued…