Instructio Redemptoris sacramentum
De quibusdam observandis et vitandis circa
Sanctissimam Eucharistiam
Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller
The inalterability of the Eucharist – the
fulfilment of our redemption
(1)
During
the past year, the Church has remembered the Constitution on the Holy Liturgy
entitled “Sacrosanctum concilium”, published forty years ago. Pope John Paul II
suitable valorised this document from the Second Vatican Council that is so
important for the Church and her development. Due to the particular importance
of the magisterial document, the Encyclical “Ecclesia de Eucaristia”, dated
April 17th 2003, assumes exceptional importance. The Apostolic
Letter “Spiritus et sponsa”, published on the fortieth anniversary of the
appearance of the “Sacrosanctum concilium” is also significant and convincingly
proves the value and the need for this Constitution.
(2)
The
Council considered it of particular importance to emphasise the meaning of the
liturgy as a fundamental integral part of Christian life. The liturgy is not a
secondary ritualised expression of cult and merely externally added to the
profession of the Christian faith, but “through which the work of our
redemption is accomplished” (SC 2) in the liturgy, to the highest level “in the divine sacrifice of the
Eucharist” (SC2). The liturgy is the
expression of our faith in Christ, the Supreme Priest, and the visible and
sacramental fulfilment of God’s promise of redemption through the gift of His
Son on the Cross.
(3)
From
the very beginning, the efforts may by the Ecclesial Magisterium were addressed
at reform oriented towards a real enrichment and in-depth analysis of Christian
life among the faithful (SC1). There was never the intention of exclusively
addressing an improvement of the forms of liturgical expression, but rather, a
renewal of Christian faith and life starting from those sources that are part
of the liturgy 1
(4)
It
is therefore understandable that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy has
become a reference point for the Church’s Theology, spirituality and real
pastoral customs. If instead one considers the history of the reception of this
document in the course of over forty years, a confused image emerges of various
theoretical-liturgical approaches that have neglected liturgy’s fundamental nucleus.
In this a decisive role is played by personal pastoral points of view that
approach the words of the Constitution in a subjective manner and use it to
legitimise their own views. In this
manner the Constitution’s fundamental requirements are not satisfied.
(5)
The
consequences as particularly serious: through renouncing the aforementioned
requirements, liturgy becomes subordinated to the personal preferences of those
responsible for the liturgy and also to their imagination. This Institution of
the Congregation for the divine Cult intends instead to re-conciliate the
liturgy and its external forms with its sacramental essence. In harmony with
the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the liturgy
and its exterior expressions are once again presented in their inalterability.
The final responsibility lies with the Church’s pastoral office, in particular
with the Bishop as the moderator, promotore et custos totius viate liturgicae (no. 19) in his
own Diocese.
(6)
Indications
regards to the correct way to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice remind us of
the existing rules (See Chapter. III, no. 48-79: the words of the Eucharistic
Prayer must be spoken with no variations,
with no additions or changes; they are spoken exclusively by an
ordained priest; lay people are forbidden from giving homilies during Mass;
rituals from other religions are forbidden, etc). Emphasis is placed on the
effort made to present the liturgy to the faithful as God’s presence. It is the
“summit towards which the activity of the Church is directed” (SC 10). The
aforementioned inalterability of the liturgy and the rejection of arbitrary
actions explain better the liturgy’s profounder aspects: “Either the liturgy is
God’s work or it does not exist; with it God searches for us though earthly
means. The liturgy carries the element of universality that cannot be
understood through the community but only through the categories of God’s
People and the Body of Christ”2 The renewed emphasis placed on the liturgical
rules is therefore addressed not at improving or changing existing provisions
regarding the liturgy, but at putting them within a soteriological and christological context. The liturgy cannot be
abandoned to human manipulation. In the
Church’s liturgical work, Christ continues his work as a priest. 3 We human beings cannot perceive or
understand with our modern judgement the christological advantages that are
important for the redemption of humankind.
(7)
The
liturgy’s inalterability does not only concern respecting the rules and
provisions. Not even the intrinsic advantages can be changed in favour of
autonomous legitimacies. In the ecumenical
debate concerning the unity provided by Christ, the eucharistic
celebration cannot be used as a means or an instrument for an only apparent and
merely exterior unity. The Eucharistic celebration used as the means for the
artificial unity of divided Christians does not respect the fundamental
positions of our confession of faith. The Church is both the subject and the
object of faith. A content-related movement of the Eucharistic celebration
would destroy its theological-sacramental characteristic. Participation in the
Eucharist involves an identity of faith expressed through accepting the Church
as a Sacrament, through accepting the idea of the substantial transformation of
the gifts of bread and wine into the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.
In this transformation the faith cannot be open to change. The interruption of
the Eucharist’s central mystery so as to create apparent unity cannot be the
path to successful ecumenism, hence addressed at the truth. Faith in God’s
redeeming work and its continuation within the Church (LG 1) also implies an
inner acceptance of the Church’s external organisation (hierarchy). It is therefore
obvious that the inalterability of the eucharistic celebration, both externally
concerning the ritual and internally concerning its contents, is “the summit
towards which the Church works” (SC 10) and since it “is a sacred action surpassing all others; no
other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the
same degree” (SC 7).
(8)
It
is possible for non-Catholic Christians to participate in the Eucharist through
readings and a spiritual life dedicated to God. Through their participation
they bear witness to their own inner readiness to worship God, to praise Him
and glorify Him together with Catholic Christians. Full participation
instead, also made manifest through the assumption of the visible Church’s
sacramental reality, involves instead full and unrestricted belonging to the
Church. The Eucharist is the expression of the common faith, the visible
confession made by God’s People conformed by Jesus Christ to His Body. (This
includes the Sacraments, consecration, the Pontiff’s primacy etc). The unity in the Faith and in the profession
of faith is surmised as is the exterior liturgical fulfilment of the mirror
image of the common profession of the faith. Only what corresponds to the
contents of the Sacraments can be fulfilled within the sacrament. The form of
prayer corresponds to the form of faith and confession (lex credendi – lex
orandi; See DH 246). Unlimited unity with the doctrine of faith and the
Catholic Church’s sacramental constitution has a fundamental meaning for full participation
in the Church’s Eucharist.
(9)
The
Instruction is also addressed at those who within the liturgical act, and in
particular the Eucharistic celebration, address their attention at private
aesthetic representations. The liturgy cannot become an instrument for personal
or local tastes. A correct Eucharistic celebration depends on respecting the
rules established by the Congregation for the Divine Cult and the inner
awareness of those participating.
(10)
The
Eucharistic celebration therefore avoids the attempt of becoming a pedagogic
tool. Its inalterability protects it from attempts to use elements of the
divine office for individual or social-political means. Observing the rules for
the correct celebration of the Eucharist leaves no space for this kind of thing.
(11)
Without
doubt a correct approach to the Instruction consists in following the
aforementioned rules for the Eucharistic celebration and necessarily respecting
them in their theological aspects. It is not in fact a case involving further
prohibitions or authorisations, but the liturgy’s return to its original
definition as a sacrifice, in which Christ welcomes us and reconciles us with
the Father. It is He who acts. The inalterability of the Eucharistic
celebration’s interior and exterior elements also derives from the link with
ecclesiology, Christology and the doctrine of the Sacraments. Rediscovering
this dimension is the Instruction’s intention: to once again see Christ in the
Liturgy and enter into a relationship with His life its inner fulfilment within
the Eucharist.