ROME, FEB. 15, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q: I celebrate both forms of the Roman rite in my parish and try to keep current regarding the liturgical norms for both forms. I find it a bit disconcerting that a trend is emerging that would introduce elements of the extraordinary form into that of the ordinary form under the «what is not expressly forbidden is permitted» principle. On some blogs it seems to get presented as «what was not expressly forbidden is required.» What come to mind are questions about the use of the maniple in the ordinary form and rigorist questions about the placement of the pall, and the reappearance of osculations. Having recall of the «abuses» I witnessed in the Tridentine form that collapsed priestly prayer into the careful recitation of the Words of Institution (the remainder becoming auxiliary to that moment), I wonder if we face a similar development if we are not wary of exalting «doing the red» over «praying the black»? — W.S., Allentown, Pennsylvania
A: In his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum Benedict XVI stated the following: «Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s ‘Lex orandi’ will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact, two usages of the one Roman rite.»
Therefore, we have two usages and two forms and two distinct missals for use in the same Roman rite. I believe that the only respectful attitude toward these two forms is to respect each one and follow the indications found in each missal. It is true, for example, that the new missal does not forbid the use of the maniple, but this does not mean that it may be used. Pope Paul VI’s missal lists the vestments required for Mass and these are what should be used, no more and no less. The same must be said about gestures and other minor rites.
Another question refers to those who believe that some or more elements from one rite could be incorporated into the other. Thus, some propose restoring the extraordinary form’s beautiful offertory prayers to the ordinary form, or unifying the two liturgical calendars and the cycles of readings. These are valid points of debate, but only the Supreme Pontiff can authorize permanent changes in either form.
A different point is the use of the extraordinary form’s more-precise norms as a guide to interpret the looser indications found in the newer rite. In principle I would say that this is a valid procedure if combined with common sense in adapting to various ritual situations. They can provide a general rule of thumb without creating a canonical obligation.
We must also keep in mind that on more than a few occasions the lack of specifics in the new norms is a deliberate choice to allow for flexibility. Our reader offers the example of the pall, a stiffened linen square placed on the chalice to prevent dirt and insects falling into it. The ordinary form allows the celebrant to decide whether to use it or not according to circumstances of time and place. In the extraordinary form, when the celebrant decides to use the pall, the norms offer some guidance as to when to place and remove it, without imposing any obligation.
On several occasions I have expressed my view that the principle of «what is not expressly forbidden is permitted» is not a valid instrument of liturgical interpretation. It could also be a dangerous double-edged sword. Just as the use of the maniple is not forbidden, nor is it forbidden for a priest to paint his face and attach a false red nose to celebrate a «clown Mass.» Liturgical norms cannot forbid every possibility. They are of a necessarily positive descriptive nature and are meant to be executed as written with neither additions nor subtractions.
Finally I would say that a genuine celebration cannot contrast «doing the red» and «praying the black.» Liturgy is essentially a ritual action in words and gestures in which both flow into a single act of worship. The aim of a celebrant in either form of the Roman rite is to pray the red and the black. Performing the ritual gestures with reverence and decorum is as much an act of prayer as pronouncing the sacred words with the pause and aplomb of one who truly believes that the greatest mystery on earth is taking place at this very moment.
* * *
Follow-up: Deacons and Exorcisms
In a matter related to the question regarding deacons and exorcisms (see Feb. 1), an Australian reader asked about deacons and the sacrament of anointing the sick.
He wrote: «The increasing decline of the ordained priesthood and an increase in the married diaconate brings about a question in canon law regarding the giving of the last rites by a deacon — whether married or those on the way to the priesthood — and also by those employed or holding the title of pastoral associate within a parish environment. As a pastoral associate, I was recently asked to go through the rite for the dying for a very dear friend. I was a little uncomfortable doing this but nevertheless undertook the rite in the absence of the parish priest. I did not use the blessed oils. Given that a deacon becomes ordained through the laying on of hands, is there a canonical bar on deacons from anointing a person who is dying or in danger of death? I appreciate the fact that a deacon cannot give the sacrament of reconciliation and forgiveness.»
There are two documents which throw light on this subject. First is the Code of Canon Law which states:
«Can. 1003 §1. Every priest and a priest alone validly administers the anointing of the sick.
Ǥ2. All priests to whom the care of souls has been entrusted have the duty and right of administering the anointing of the sick for the faithful entrusted to their pastoral office. For a reasonable cause, any other priest can administer this sacrament with at least the presumed consent of the priest mentioned above.
«§3. Any priest is permitted to carry blessed oil with him so that he is able to administer the sacrament of the anointing of the sick in a case of necessity.»
Second, there is a document issued jointly by several offices of the Holy See in 1997 and dealing with the «Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in Pastoral Ministry.» In dealing with the apostolate to the sick this document says:
Ǥ1. In this area, the non-ordained faithful can often provide valuable collaboration. Innumerable works of charity to the sick are constantly provided by the non-ordained faithful either individually or through community apostolates. These constitute an important Christian presence to sick and suffering of the greatest importance. The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the Anointing of the Sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or any other oil.
Ǥ2. With regard to the administration of this sacrament, ecclesiastical legislation reiterates the theologically certain doctrine and the age old usage of the Church which regards the
priest as its only valid minister. This norm is completely coherent with the theological mystery signified and realized by means of priestly service.
«It must also be affirmed that the reservation of the ministry of Anointing to the priest is related to the connection of this sacrament to the forgiveness of sin and the worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist. No other person may act as ordinary or extraordinary minister of the sacrament since such constitutes simulation of the sacrament.»
These official documents clarify that the reason why the deacon can never be considered as a minister of the anointing of the sick is precisely because one of the possible effects of the sacrament of anointing is the forgiveness of sins. Pastorally it is always preferable for the sick person to make a sacramental confession immediately prior to being anointed; however, should this prove impossible, then, the anointing itself will grant the necessary forgiveness.
Since forgiveness of post-baptismal sin is intimately united to the priesthood, it follows that the reservation of this sacrament to priests derives from the nature of the sacrament. It is thus based on divine law and is not a mere legal barrier created by human law.
* * *
Readers may send questions to liturgy@zenit.org. Please put the word «Liturgy» in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.
