Rubrics, Piety, and Innovation

I have been MC’ing more and more lately (MC = Master of Ceremonies at a liturgical celebration), and something has been increasingly coming to my mind.  This is the question of “proper” liturgical practice.  Many different voices are involved in this conversation, and no easy answer seems to present itself.  However, there are several phrases that continuously come up:  ”conscious, active, and full participation of the faithful” (GIRM 18), “do the red and say the black,” and “tradition vs. adaptation.”  I’d like to look at these three phrases as a way to find a calmer conversation on the liturgy that is “is the center of the whole of Christian life for the Church both universal and local, as well as for each of the faithful individually” (GIRM 16).

Full, Active, and Conscious Participation

First up is a quote from the General Instruction to the Romal Missal (GIRM), which is the document of the Church that guides the way we celebrate the Holy Mass (the Roman Missal is the name of the liturgical book that we use to pray the Mass together as the Church).  The Church envisions that all of God’s people in their own way an in their own vocation worship God together “fully” (with every part of their being), “actively” (there are no spectators at Mass only people in active worship of God), and “consciously” (everyone is aware of what it is they are doing).  Everyone should be involved.  We are one Church, the Body of Christ, and the liturgy is “the action of Christ and of the People of God arrayed hierarchically” (GIRM 16) giving all worship to God.  This is great up front, but what do you do when different ideas about how the different groups in the Church are to all celebrate “consciously, actively, and fully?”

Do the Red, Say the Black

We should start to answer this question by examining the Roman Missal itself.  The phrase above about the red and the black refers to the different colors of print in the Missal (not, unfortunately, to the school colors of my alma mater).  The parts that are to be spoken by the priest celebrant, concelebrating priests, deacon, congregation, lectors, cantors, or other specialized ministers.  The actions and orientations of the people in these various roles are specified in the missal in red lettering.  The Latin word for this red writing used in medieval documents for the described purpose is “rubrica,” from “ruber,” meaning a shade of red (Oxford Etymological Dictionary).  So, the rubrics are literally the red words (of course that word’s meaning has expanded).  The main point of contention between the various voices in the debate on “good liturgy” tends to be on the carrying out of these rubrics.  Recently, the words to be said (in black) have been under scrutiny in the English speaking world.  That question has been settled by the Church in the new translation we will begin to use this Sunday, so we will not treat it here.

Tradition vs. Adaptation

There tend to be two “factions” in the Church that make the most noise (we very much like being stratified here in the US these days it seems).  One faction seeks to aid in full, active, conscious participation of the faithful by exalting what it sees as “traditional” practices, practices documented from the history of the Church’s liturgical celebration.  The other faction seeks to realize full, active, conscious participation by interpreting/adapting the rubrics to the particular parish or worshiping community’s situation and needs.  Both groups find support in a way from the GIRM.  Pope Benedict XVI exhorts us in the newly translated edition’s forward:  ”These texts contain riches which have preserved and expressed the faith and experience of the People of God over its two-thousand-year history.  However, the GIRM also asserts that “part of the new Missal orders the prayers of the Church in a way more open to the needs of our times” (15; for a full treatment of both points of view in tension, see the entire Introduction).  So, the so called (sometime self-labelled) “traditionalists” will many times confront those who seek to make adaptations in order to keep up with the times, and the so called “progressives” confront those who seek to conserve that which has gone before (these names are completely arbitrary and I use them only in order to have a name by which I can signify the groups).  A progressive then might get frustrated by a traditionalist making profound bows to the presider while serving at the altar.  A traditionalist might balk at a progressive who decides to play a little light instrumental music in the background of the Prayer of the Faithful.  What is to be thought about this.  The progressive might label the pious actions of the traditionalist as “additions” while the traditionalist might label the pious actions of the progressive as “innovations.”  My thesis is that both are accurate descriptions, and both are to be avoided.

Both factions seek to supplement the rubrics for pious reasons.  Piety, in the way I am using it here, is a personal act of reverence.  Such practices include: saying “My Lord and my God” at the elevation of the blessed sacrament, holding hands with the person next to you, extra genuflections or bows, raising ones hands in prayer, praying personal prayers after receiving communion, lowering one’s eyes or bowing one’s head in prayer, etc.  In Mass, there are host of pious actions one may carry out if it enhances one’s prayer.   These pieties are beautiful and should be respected.  However, there is on major rule that must be remembered:  Piety at mass must remain personal.  This is because the Mass is the action of the whole Church and does not belong to the individual, even the presider.  When one is acting in an official role at Mass, that person must remember that this action is not his or her own.  This is the reason we have rubrics.  Any piety that is imposed on the liturgy, in an official (especially presidential) manner is rightly called an “innovation.”  Innovation is to be avoided, because it fractures unity.  My parish celebrates the Mass yes, and we are a particular community with a particular character, but we celebrate the one Holy Mass of the Church.  If a server teaches other servers that they must take two steps back after handing the celebrant an item and then make a profound bow, the server is innovating.  The rubrics do not call for it, because the action of the server is not important to the liturgy and therefore should not be made an event.  If a choir member thinks that a little background music to the Prayer of the Faithful is necessary to enhance the power of the moment, the choir member is innovating.  The Prayer of the Faithful is already designed to bring all people together into the one Prayer of the Church, and there is no rubric to indicate that help is needed.

Traditionalists often criticize progressives for innovating, but it is often they who innovate the most, but they do not do it exclusively. Rather, why not simply trust the Church?  Many very, very smart and well-versed men and women have spent amazing quantities of time to develop the current edition of the Roman Missal (and its rubrics).  Should we not celebrate the one liturgy as they have laid out?  Do the red, say the black, and celebrate it well.  Each parish will take on its own character in liturgical celebration natually, but there will be no loss of meaning if we take our own pride out of it.  Liturgical innovation ultimately comes down to this, pride.  I think I know better than the Church!  Why come at liturgy with suspicion and a desire to “fix” what’s “broken?”  Celebrate well (fully, actively, and consciously) that beautiful liturgy that was so carefully constructed, drawing from our Church’s tradition history and adapting it to today’s circumstances as our needs progress in time.  The Holy Spirit guides the Church, let’s trust her and leave our innovations out of it.  Be we traditionalist or progressive in our leanings, pride is a sin that leads us all to the same end.  In humility, may we celebrate together in Mass, always respecting “the integrity and unity of the Roman Rite” (GIRM 399).