INTRODUCING “REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM”

Vatican ^ | April 23, 2004 | Francis Cardinal Arinze

[NYer]

1. Origins of this Instruction

It helps first of all to place this Instruction at its origins. At the Solemn Last Supper Mass on Holy Thursday in St Peter's Basilica, on April 17 2003, the Holy Father signed and gave to the Church his fourteenth encyclical letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

In this beautiful document Pope John Paul II states, inter alia, that the Holy Eucharist “stands at the centre of the Church's life” (n. 3), that “it unites heaven and earth. It embraces and permeates all creation” (n. 8), and that it “is the most precious possession which the Church can have in her journey through history” (n. 9).

At the same time he notes that there are positive and negative developments in its celebration and worship since the Second Vatican Council (n. 10), that a number of abuses have been a source of suffering for many and that he considers it his duty “to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity” (n. 52). “Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms”, he continued, “I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality” (n. 52).

This is the origin of this Instruction which the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in close collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now offers to the Latin Church.

2. Reasons for Liturgical Norms

Someone may ask why there should be liturgical norms at all. Would creativity, spontaneity, the freedom of the children of God and ordinary good sense not be enough? Why should the worship of God be regimented by rubrics and regulations? Is it not enough just to teach people the beauty and the exalted nature of the liturgy?

Liturgical norms are necessary because “in liturgy full public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and by his members. From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of his Body the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7). And the summit of the liturgy is the Eucharistic celebration. No one should be surprised if, with the passage of time, Holy Mother Church has developed words and actions, and therefore directives, for this supreme act of worship. Eucharistic norms are devised to express and protect the Eucharistic mystery and also manifest that it is the Church that celebrates this august sacrifice and sacrament. As Pope John Paul II puts it. “These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 52).

It follows that “priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to these norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church” (ibid.).

Obviously, external conformity is not enough. Faith, hope and charity which also manifest themselves in acts of solidarity with the needy, are demanded by participation in the Holy Eucharist. This Instruction underlines this dimension in article 5: “A merely external observation of norms would obviously be contrary to the nature of the sacred Liturgy, in which Christ himself wishes to gather his Church, so that together with himself she will be ‘one body and one spirit’. For this reason, external action must be illuminated by faith and charity which unite us with Christ and with one another and engender love for the poor and the abandoned”.

3. Is it important to pay attention to Abuses?

An allied temptation which has to be resisted is that it is a waste of time to pay attention to liturgical abuses. Someone wrote that abuses always existed and always will exist, and that therefore we should just get on with positive liturgical formation and celebration.

This objection, true in part, can be rather misleading. All abuses regarding the Holy Eucharist are not of the same weight. Some threaten to make the sacrament invalid. Some are manifestations of deficiency in Eucharistic faith. Others contribute to confusion among the people of God and to growing desacralization of Eucharistic celebrations. They are not banal.

Of course liturgical formation is necessary for all in the Church. “It is vitally necessary”, says the Second Vatican Council, “that attention be directed, above all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14). But it is also true that “in various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 10). “Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty” (Instruction, 7). “Arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal” (Instruction, 11) for which the Second Vatican Council hoped. “These abuses have nothing to do with the authentic spirit of the Council and must be prudently and firmly corrected by Pastors” (John Paul II: Letter on 40^th Anniv. of Sacrosanctum Concilium, Spiritus et Sponsa, 15).

As for those who modify liturgical texts on their own authority it is important to observe with this Instruction that “the sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine, so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the diminution or to the elimination of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi (Instruction, 10).

4. Overview of the Instruction

The Instruction has an introduction, eight chapters and a conclusion.

The first chapter on the regulation of the sacred Liturgy speaks of the roles of the Apostolic See, the Diocesan Bishop, the Bishops' Conference, Priests and Deacons. I single out the role of the Diocesan Bishop. He is the high priest of his flock. He directs, encourages, promotes and organizes. He looks into sacred music and art. He sets up needed commissions for liturgy, music and sacred art (Instruction, 22, 25). He seeks remedies for abuses and it is to him or his assistants that recourse should first be made rather than to the Apostolic See (Instruction, 176-182, 184).

Priests have also made solemn promises to exercise with fidelity their ministry, as have deacons. They are expected to live up to their sacred responsibilities.

The second chapter concentrates on the participation of the lay faithful in the Eucharistic celebration. Baptism is the foundation for the common priesthood (Instruction, 36, 37). The ordained priest remains indispensable for a Christian community and the roles of the priests and of the lay faithful should not be confused (Instruction, 42, 45). Laypeople have their proper role. The Instruction stresses that this does not mean that everybody has to be doing something. Rather it is a question of being fully alive to the great privilege that God has given them in calling them to participate with mind and heart and their entire life in the liturgy and through it to receive God's grace. It is important to understand this properly and not to suppose that the Instruction is somehow biased against laypeople.

Chapters 3, 4 and 5 seek to answer some of the questions sometimes asked and to address some known abuses regarding the actual Mass celebration, discernment on who receives Holy Communion and who should not, care required for Holy Communion under two forms and questions regarding sacred vestments and vessels, posture while receiving Holy Communion and such like.

Chapter 6 is on worship of the Holy Eucharist outside Mass. It treats of due respect for the tabernacle, and practices such as visits to the Blessed Sacrament, Perpetual Adoration Chapel, and Eucharistic Processions and Congresses (Instruction, 130, 135-136, 140, 142-145).

Chapter 7 gives attention to extraordinary offices entrusted to the lay faithful, such as those of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, instructors or leaders of prayer services in the absence of a priest (Instruction, 147-169). These roles are different from what the Instruction speaks of in Chapter 2, where it talks of the ordinary participation of laypeople in the liturgy, and in particular in the Eucharist. Here it is a question of the things that laypeople are called upon to do when sufficient priests or even deacons are not available. The Holy See has paid considerable attention to this question in recent years and this Instruction follows suite, adding further considerations for certain circumstances.

The final chapter is on canonical remedies for crimes or abuses against the Holy Eucharist. The main remedy in the long term is proper formation and instruction and sound faith. But when abuses do occur, the Church has a duty to address them in a clear and charitable way.

5. Conclusion

In view of the article of faith that the Mass is a sacramental re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross (cf Council of Trent: DS 1740) and that in the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “ the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially contained” (Council of Trent: DS 1651; cf CCC 1374), it is clear that liturgical norms regarding the Holy Eucharist deserve our attention. They are not meticulous rubrics dictated by legalistically bent minds.

“The most blessed Eucharist contains the Church's entire spiritual wealth, that is, Christ himself, our passover and living bread” (Presbyt. Ordinis, 5). Priests and Bishops are ordained above all to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice and give the Body and Blood of Christ to the faithful. Deacons and, in their own ways, acolytes, other servers, lectors and choirs and specially deputed lay faithful are recalled to assist in definite functions. They should all in faith and devotion strive to discharge their various ministries.

The Instruction therefore concludes that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments hopes that “by the diligent application of those things that are called in this Instruction, human weakness may come to pose less of an obstacle to the action of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that with all distortion set aside and every reprobated practice removed, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, ‘Woman of the Eucharist’, the saving presence of Christ in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood may shine brightly upon all people” (Instruction, 185).

Francis Card. Arinze

23^rd April 2004

[Maximilian]

It would help if he knew something about music and art before setting up commissions on the topic.

LOL. But don't you realize that the entire purpose of setting up commissions is to avoid the need to actually learn anything about a topic?

[RockDoc]

Vatican Cracks Down on Liturgical Abuses

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican (news - web sites) insisted Friday that lay people must not deliver sermons or preach the Gospel during Mass, issuing a new directive to crack down on practices that are becoming increasingly frequent in the United States and Europe.

The document, commissioned by Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II, softened a draft that had discouraged the use of altar girls and denounced such practices as applauding and dancing during Mass. But it was still likely to raise concern among Roman Catholics and — if followed — will likely change the way liturgies are celebrated worldwide.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, whose Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the document, said the majority of priests celebrate Mass correctly and stressed the directive was not intended to be "repressive" but merely to remind Catholics of church teaching.

However, the document said some practices were "not infrequently" plaguing Masses, and that in some places "the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease."

The directive restated church teaching on all aspects of the liturgy, from the type of vestments a priest should wear, to the timing of his prayers and the types of bread and wine used at Communion.

It paid particular attention to the role of lay people in the Mass — an issue of particular concern in places where priests are increasingly in short supply.

In the United States, for example, where more than 3,000 of the 19,000 parishes did not have a resident priest last year, lay people have taken on a greater role, sometimes leading worship services and delivering homilies.

But the document said only priests and deacons may read the Gospel and priests "should ordinarily" deliver the homily, in which biblical readings are often interpreted for worshippers. The priest may occasionally delegate the homily to a deacon, "but never to a lay person."

If there is no priest to celebrate Mass, a bishop may name a lay person as an "extraordinary minister of Holy Communion" — but that should only be when necessity dictates it and for a specific time, the document said.

It said anyone conscious of being in grave sin shouldn't receive Communion without going to confession — a regulation that prompted questions about whether priests should deny Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) Communion because of his support for abortion rights.

Arinze told a news conference that U.S. bishops should decide about Kerry. When pressed about the church's general position about Catholic politicians who are "unambiguously pro-abortion," Arinze said they should be denied Communion because they are "not fit" to receive it.

The document also touched on other aspects of the Mass which are likely to resonate in the United States and elsewhere:

The gesture of exchanging the peace greeting should only be done "to those who are nearest and in a sober manner." In many U.S. parishes, the exchange can go on for some time, with the priest greeting many worshippers.


The introduction of rites taken from other religions into Mass is forbidden, and priests may not celebrate Mass in a temple or sacred place of any non-Christian religion.

Priests should be careful not to allow non-Catholics and non-Christians to take Communion.

It is "altogether laudable" to use altar boys at Mass; girls and women may also be used.

John Paul commissioned the document last year after issuing an encyclical — his most authoritative type of teaching — on abuses concerning Communion, the sacrament in which Roman Catholics believe they receive the blood and body of Christ

[RFT1]

I doubt this document will make any real i mpact for the real hetrodox parishes, but it may give some younger priests some cover when they want to re introduce more traditional aspects to the mass.

[wciappetta]

They were praying to Jesus. but to pray to someone who is believed to be passed on into heaven such as Mary, as a go between us and Jesus is foolish and wrong especially since Jesus himself says when you ask anything of the Father he says you are to ask in my name.

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

He wasn't talking to just the apostles either..... Hey these aren't my Words Check it out for yourself. Read the Bible If Jesus says one thing and the church says another,guess who you should be listening to? like in my original post these are the commandments of men and not the Words of God. Jesus himself warning all of us to beware such things.

[Arguss]

I don't want to rain on your fine example, but nowhere in that example does Aiken, or even Paul suggest to pray to any Saint or Angel, or Mary - only to Jesus Himself. In the intercessory prayer mentioned, we are the intercessors.

But, if as the Church insists, which it did before Vatican II, that we may pray to Jesus through the Saints, espcially through Mary, then we can be assured that He will not be jealous, and will answer our prayers as He sees fit.

[BlackElk]

Desdemona, I probably am about to violate all the norms of Freeping, but perhaps you'll bear with me. He doesn't have to know something about music and art. He just has to know someone who knows. Ratzinger works; observe that Ratzinger's congregation had its hand in this document. Have you checked out the section on vestments? It is very hard core, in fact cause to, you should forgive the expression, celebrate. (I've forgotten what my husband told me about paragraph breaks. Consider this one of those.) Perhaps the best thing so far (I've read nearly half) is the tone of voice. "This abuse is to be corrected with all haste." "This abuse is reprobated." Golly. It's Rome talking like Rome. Cheer up. This is from the wife of Black Elk, who doesn't know how to Freep.

[Desdemona]

Yes, but Mrs. BlackElk, what is the guarantee that a bishop's friend actually knows something about music or art. In my experience, they have been very limited and the commissions come up with suggestions that do not demonstrate any knowledge of music and art.

[Arguss]

Thank you for your greeting. I am not anybody's re-inforcement, especially those who would pick apart the Catholic faith. Actually I am the host of a traditional, conservative, bulletin board type, discussion group, and have been ivolved in apologetics for many years. Please believe I am not trying to come off as an expert, which I most certainly am not.

I also could have cited many examples, as you just did, but my comment was directed specifically to the one example you used initially. And in that example, nowhere did St. Paul or James Aiken mention praying to dead people on behalf of the living. The mention of Saints praying is in reference to living saints, such as you and I, which is what members of the Church were called in those days.

So, in that context, it was not a good example to give to a non believer, as it didn't address any of his concerns. Indeed, even Protestants pray for each other, which is what your example exhorted us to do.

Actually I pity the poor Protestants who when they die have nobody to pray for them. But they brought that upon themselves when they walked out the door.

[gemoftheocean]

There plenty of other ways she may serve. Why must altar servers be another playground for the leftists to foist their agenda on everyone?

Yes, I suppose she can pass out the cookies after mass, and be sure to clean her far superior brother's room up and wash his jock strap for him too so he can get to mass on time.

Seriously, though a good case can be made by the church why holy orders should only be for men, there is zip, zero, NADA argument that is convincing that girls must be denied from assisting at the altar. Since '69 or '70 minor orders were abolished (and prior to that certainly no 8 year old boys ever were installed in the minor order of "acolyte" in your Joe Average Parish.) If you'd read your catechism it says that ALL of the laity are equal, and last I looked girls are part of ALL of the laity.

If you seriously think justice, fairness, and equity are "leftist playgound" issue, I feel sorry for you, and sincerely hope that you NEVER have a daughter, as for you she will NEVER be "as good" as any of her brothers.

If you feel that a girl handing cruets to a priest at mass is a "threat" to you, then that's pretty lame, and you must be a little bundle of insecurities about your faith.

[RockDoc]

You might try reading this: http://www.totustuus.com/girlservers.htm

[gemoftheocean]

Frankly, the "Essay" is patently both offensive and non-sensical. NO argument is given why girls *intrinsicly" can't serve at the altar. Just appeals to social custom. Hello: "Social customs" change. "Girl Altar Boys" is a repugnant term, in that it's implied that in order for girls to be considered "worth something" they have to become some sort of pseudo-"Boy." IF it was a practise for the altar servers and the priest to do a ritual gang shower stripped naked before mass...then you might have something. I know of no church ritual which requires such a thing. Trust me, I've looked all through the GIRM and it isn't there.

To argue that some girl serving at mass has been the cause for the fall-off in vocations to the priesthood is flat-out stupid. [Now please don't run off bawling to the moderator "like a little girl" that I called you "stupid." I called the argument stupid.] Numero uno, if someone's alleged "Call to the altar" to serve as a priest is stopped by the sight of a 9 year old girl handing a priest a cruet at mass, then it wasn't much of a "calling." That's like saying because some 9 year old girl on a co-ed little league team hit a Texas leaguer off a boy pitcher, that he's going to take his ball, go home, and never become the next Nolan Ryan. This "drop off" happened WAY before girls routinely served at the altar. Try again, sherlock.

For extra credit: Tell me why the following TRUE situation was "equitable, just, and right" -- tell me why if you had a daughter in the following situation, you can explain to her how the boy in question had so much more right to hand the priest the cruets at mass than she did:

year: 1970-1971 place(s): St. John Eudes Catholic Church, Chatsworth, Ca. Ernest Lawrence Jr. High School---9th grade English class dramatis personae: Boy who shall be named "John" Girl who shall be named "Mary"

"John" is one of the head altar boys. John regularly serves mass. He has a penis. He is "entitled." [He does not really have "the faith" but that is immaterial, he has a penis, and that is what matters. He was baptised, just like John Kerry.]

"Mary" is John's age. They attend school together. In fact, they have some classes together. Can Mary serve mass? No. She is "just a girl" the church does not deem her worthy to hand the priest the cruets. Some insecure little boy might be swayed away from his future calling to be a priest if he sees Mary assisting at the altar. Mary sees John serve mass at least twice a month, with perks like getting to be thurifer at high masses throughout the year.

There is a "debate" in English class in the public school. "John" vociferously argues that abortion should be legal. yes. This same pure-faced altar boy. No matter he recieves communion all the time...no matter idiots in the pews think "Ah, there's a future priest"...."John" what will later be termed a "cafeteria catholic."

Mary? Mary is on the debate team OPPOSITE John. While most of her budding liberal classmates are on John's side (John is an easy sucker for peer pressure, but MAry is not) Mary argues pro-life. Mary is concious of her duty to defend the faith, unlike dirtbag John who goes out of his way to say religions shouldn't "push their morals on other people." [BTW, John was not "Assigned" the pro-abort position, the kids were asked to sign up for the side they could in conscience support. John was a true-blue abortion rights supporter.]

Would Mary have given anything to be able to assist the priest at mass? Yes. Did she "Defend the faith?" Yes. Was she a better catholic than John? Yes. How come she couldn't serve mass? She didn't have a penis. "PEnis envy," in this case? No. More like "penis disgust." Disgust that FOR NO GOOD REASON, she was not allowed to assist at mass. This particular "Mary" remained a good and faithful catholic, because she knew in her heart that JESUS would never have refused her....it was just a stupid social custom that prevented her. As for the "John?" Who knows? Maybe he repented of his non-catholic ways. Maybe he is now an abortionist himself.

Question: How many "Jills" saw the above true story, or similar situations and "lost the faith" because they were sick of the hypocrisy? People can only take so much crap. Not everyone is strong enough to retain the faith and not let stupid social customs in the church turn them from the eucharist. Unfortunately, load too many of these experiences on some people and they fall away from the church for no good DOCTRINAL reason.

Some people can actually see the inequities and the injustice in the above situation, which really happened. You won't be one of them.

In Paul's letter to Timothy, he complains about some women wearing braids and pearls too. Customs change. OR does your overly romanticized ritual have a "pearl/and braid" male porter at the door to chuck kids in braids and women with pearls out on their ears?

Try not being such a "pharisee" sometimes. Figure out WHY a rule is/was in place. A temporary discipline? A social custom? A response to counteract a current topic? [Can we eat sacrificed meats without giving offense?]

Sure it's great if boys serve at the altar. It's also great when girls do so as well. And it's even better when they actually PRACTISE the faith outside of mass.

[RockDoc]

Why get so exercised - All I said was "You might try reading this". I made no comment at all - just thought it was an interesting read. People like you make it difficult to have a civil conversation. You remind me of Sister Scarecrow on our Liturgy Committee.

[gemoftheocean]

Relax. I DID at least read the document to see if there was some support for "male only" altar servers that I had overlooked. I hadn't.

[johnb2004]

You sound like a castrating type female who thinks secular notions of equality equal holiness. I accept what Rome teaches. They allow altar girls if the bishop and priest allow them to serve. I see few good arguments as to why they are needed. I see many arguments as to why they should not be allowed. The chief argument is that altar boys are a way to encourage and discern vocations to the priesthood.

Your posts only prove what many already know to be true. Those who want girl altar boys have a left wing agenda and have problems accepting that men and women are not interchangeable in every single circumstance.

[gemoftheocean]

Boo-hoo-hoo, my little sister could rollerskate faster than I could and I never got over it, so I'm damn well going to make sure every female I ever meet that shows the least little bit of assertiveness to stand up for herself and other females who are getting an unfair deal get called a 'castrating type female' that ought to make her go cry in the corner. Whatever, dude.