Unity in the liturgy.

Unity in what is necessary

"One who offers worship to God on the Church's behalf in a way contrary to that which is laid down by the Church with God-given authority and which is customary in the Church is guilty of falsification."

As a condition for the successful evangelization of the world, the Second Vatican Council (1962-5) stated that it is necessary "to create in the Church itself mutual esteem, reverence and harmony, and acknowledge all legitimate diversity. . . let there be unity in what is necessary, freedom in what is doubtful, and charity in everything." (1)

Unfortunately, this passage has too often been read in isolation from the other Council documents, sometimes by people desirous of isolating themselves from the Magisterium and discipline of the universal Church.

Yet, among the conditions set down for the reform of the liturgy, the Council insisted upon the preservation of "the substantial unity of the Roman rite" and reminded the faithful that the regulation of the 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 also acknowledged that Episcopal conferences may exercise regulatory powers conceded by law, "within defined limits." Having said this, the Council Fathers concluded:

"Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." (2)

Legitimate authority and the "People of God"

Some people falsely represent legitimate authority as originating in a mandate from "the grass roots;" their motto is, "WE are Church." For example, the co-authors of the 1992 book In the Eye of the Catholic Storm, Bishop Remi De Roo of Victoria, B.C., Douglas Roche, former editor of the Western Catholic Reporter of Edmonton, and Mary Jo Leddy, at that time still a religious, appear to be representative of such factions. They state that the Second Vatican Council converted the Church from an authoritarian `hierarchical' institution to a `collegial' communion of equal persons best summed up in the phrase `the People of God.' Roche described this "new, radical definition" of the Church as one of the "principal gains of Vatican II":

"It meant that the Church was no longer to be thought of as a vertical structure, beginning with the Pope and bishops.. .and...the laity on the bottom. Vatican II made it clear that baptism gave us equality." (3)

Bishop De Roo paints a stern picture of the Church before Vatican II, a Church in which "The hierarchy was the totality of power...The Pope had all the authority."

"And Vatican II said, no, that's got to be corrected by an understanding of the Church as communion; by a recognition of the Church as the People of God..." (4)

Assertions like these are frequently made to justify liturgical freewheeling in parishes or dioceses which ignore (or even denigrate) the liturgical norms of the Catholic church. As a result, the Second Vatican Council is often blamed for adulterations of the liturgy which it in no sense approved. As the millennium approaches, the words of the Council itself need to be heard.

The People of God

In the Eye of the Catholic Storm omits several references to the hierarchy which appear within the chapter on the People of God in Lumen gentium, the source of the insights the authors purport to be so anxious to share. (5)

The Council Fathers explain that full incorporation into the People of God is achieved only by the Catholic faithful (including Catechumens), who "accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who--by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion--are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops."

Noting that the People of God "is made up of different ranks," they further distinguish between the "common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood," which are "ordered to one another," yet "differ essentially and not only in degree." (6)

The common priesthood of the faithful

The lay faithful exercise their priesthood by making a spiritual offering through Christ of "all their works, prayers, and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body," by "the reception of the sacraments, prayer and thanksgiving, the witness of a holy life, abnegation and active charity." Those who strive to share more perfectly in "Christ's emptying of himself" may profess religious vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

The ordained priesthood

It is the ordained priest who "forms and rules the priestly people" and "in the person of Christ...effects the eucharistic sacrifice and offers it to God in the name of all the people." Those in Holy Orders "are appointed to nourish the Church with the word and grace of God in the name of Christ."

The Eucharistic sacrifice is "the centre and root" of a priest's life in which he exercises the supreme degree of his sacred functions. Acting "in the person of Christ who gave himself as a victim to sanctify men," priests are encouraged to "imitate what they handle" and to make their own "what is enacted on the altar of sacrifice." Their very lives are to be lived sacrifically, "in conformity with the crucified Christ."

The sacrifices of the People of God are joined with that of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice through the mediation of the ordained priest. Thus, what was accomplished once and for all on Calvary is united to what is accomplished daily in each life of each member of the Church, and in the offering of the divine victim to God the Father the work of our redemption is carried out.

The Church is hierarchical

In passages which include an affirmation of continuity with the First Vatican Council of the last century (1869-1870), Vatican II outlined the basic teachings concerning the organization of the Catholic Church: that it originated with Christ, who placed it under the guidance of Peter and the apostles; that, by divine precept, bishops and popes have succeeded Peter and the apostles in "this hierarchically constituted society"; and that the authentic teaching of the apostolic church has been preserved by them, "in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ (cf. Lk, 10:16)."

Communion and structure

Bishop De Roo et al would have us believe that the Second Vatican Council emphasized "communion" and relationships to the exclusion of institution and "structure." But they are contradicted by the Council itself. Communion is not merely vague goodwill, but "something organic which calls for a juridical structure."

The Council Fathers affirmed the divine origin of the distinction between the hierarchy and the "rest of the People of God," but added that the very distinction involves the union of pastors and the other faithful in a close relationship.

Consideration of the Council references to this relationship or to `communion' do not imply reservations about ecclesiastical (ecclesia, Latin for church) `structure,' for "the Holy Spirit preserves unfailingly that form of government which was set up by Christ the Lord in his Church."

Liturgical "liberation," followed by disintegration

However, the currently prevailing understanding of freedom as "freedom from restraint" inclines many to the view that the separation of "local churches" or "the People of God" from these structures is liberating and therefore good. The result is that those who perpetuate such structures are seen as guilty of oppression.(7)

In these circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the liturgical renewal mandated by the Council has, in too many places, suffered from ill-conceived experiments in theatrics and rejection of Catholic liturgical norms.(8) Whether the result of ignorance or pride, such conduct attacks the very life and unity of the Church at its origin, for the holy sacrifice of the Mass is "the centre and culmination of the entire life of the Christian community" and "the source and summit of the Christian life."

Imprudent, intemperate or unauthorized tampering with the liturgy, especially the liturgy of the Mass, is a grave matter:

"The faithful have a right to a true liturgy, which means the liturgy desired and laid down by the Church, which has in fact indicated where adaptations may be made as called for by pastoral requirements in different places, or by different groups of people."(9)

When the Catholic liturgy is falsified by departure from the norms of the Church, the results are "the impairing of the unity of the faith and worship in the Church, doctrinal uncertainty, scandal and bewilderment among the People of God, and the near inevitability of violent reactions."(10)

Eight years after this warning, its prophetic nature was illustrated by the separation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the members of his Society of St. Pius X from the Church. The prophecy continues to be fulfilled in parishes where the faithful are manipulated and misled by freewheeling lay or clerical liturgists.

Authorized rubrics and texts may not be to everyone's liking, but as long as they are followed, few liturgical conflicts can arise between persons or groups with different tastes in music, language or worship. Moreover, it is unlikely that any doctrinal errors will be nourished by complementary liturgical corruptions.

On the other hand, if the norms of Catholic worship are secondary to the alleged "will of the people" or so-called pastoral "needs," or the whims of the parish priest, one can expect divisive struggles. Those who claim to represent "the people" (or to know what is best for them) will face others who assert their right to authentic Catholic worship in communion with the universal Church. Aside from this, it is obvious from the conciliar texts that a spirit of rebellion which sets `the People of God' against the socalled liturgical yoke of the Catholic Church involves serious dogmatic error and a tendency to schism.

A Catholic who is faithful to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council cannot interpret `legitimate diversity' to include liturgical innovations which violate liturgical laws. Nor can `unity in what is necessary' exclude the duty of obedience to legitimate authority.

(1) Gaudium et spes (1965), 92.

(2) Sacrosanctum concilium (1963), 38, 22, 39, 40, 44.

(3) Toronto: Harper Collins, 1992. p. 10.

(4) Ibid., 34.

(5) While Roche remembers that Lumen gentium included a chapter on the hierarchy, he mentions it only to emphasize how dramatically significant it is that the chapter on the People of God comes before it.

(6) La, 10-14.

(7) "... there is a temptation to feel that our personal rights are fully maintained only when we are exempt from every restriction of divine law." But that is the way leading to the extinction of human dignity, not its preservation." (G et s., 41).

(8) See "The Cup is for Everyone," National Bulletin on liturgy: The Communion Rite," vol. 24 (June 1991), 125. It is unfortunate that such a mendacious article should appear in an official journal of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Readers offended by the adjective "mendacious" are invited to compare the article to Vatican Council II's Sacrosanctum concilium (1963), p. 55.

(9) I. D. Foreword.

(10) Ibid.