Catholic World News News Feature

Elvis Sightings in the Roman Rite February 01, 2002

By Father Jerry Pokorsky

The liturgy is the priestly action of Christ in union with his Body and Bride the Church (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7). Properly speaking, the words of the Mass represent the dialogue between Christ and the Church. The Church listens and responds to her Lord and unites herself to him as he offers himself to the Father. We enter into this dialogue only insofar as we are members of the Body of Christ. Therefore, we must rise to the challenge of the words and actions of the Mass. We must make our own the sentiments, intentions, hopes, desires and pleas of the Church.

The public prayer of the Church should encourage individual Christians to grow and rise to the challenge of mature, profound prayer. Even in purely cultural terms, it is evident that the Catholic liturgy, with its profound objectivity and beauty, provides a unique and necessary experience for modern man: that of expanding, rather than limiting, the horizons of his identity, by having him behold himself in the light of the divine mystery of redemption.

Compare the splendor of the Mass, properly celebrated, to any other gathering whatsoever. The objectivity and beauty of the Catholic liturgy as a cultural form can, and often has been, a gateway into the fullness of the Christian Gospel and Mystery. How many people have converted to the Catholic faith because a casual contact with a liturgical service?

Hence the Mass cannot be allowed to become a mere format for individuals to express themselves as they already are. The Mass transforms us; we ought not try to transform the Mass. Great care must be taken to ensure that Christian liturgy not become subjectivized, or placed at the service of the self-expression of individuals.

You don't need me to report that the transforming power of the Mass has been at risk for several decades. Let me say at the outset that I am of the Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger school of thought with respect to the reform of the Mass. That is, I do not believe the Second Vatican Council hijacked the Mass. I am persuaded that the reforms promoted by the fathers of the Council were in the main good--the permission for the use of English (but not to exclude Latin), the emphasis on active participation, and the promotion of a noble simplicity. But I believe the Mass was hijacked to a large extent by many post-conciliar reforms and practices--influences that began well before the Second Vatican Council

In this space I am going to try to diagnose the problem, identify a few hopeful trends, and offer some pastoral advice for those who now must endure the difficulties of the transition as we work to restore the Roman Rite according to the authentic teachings of the Council.

THE ELVIS RITE

Several weeks ago, I had an Elvis Presley sighting in my home parish. Perhaps I should clarify: There was an Elvis movie on American Movie Classics. I happened to catch the very end of the movie. I don't know the name of the movie. I don't think it was comedy. All I know is that Mary Tyler Moore was very young, and Elvis Presley had not yet gained his Las Vegas weight. In any case, the movie helps illustrate how far we have come in liturgical reform and where we, please God, must go.

Here is what I saw: Mary Tyler Moore appears in the pews of a church as a nun in full habit. The church has many statues and a beautiful crucifix. A Mass is being celebrated. The priest is wearing traditional Roman vestments. The sanctuary has a spectacular Gothic design. There are no "altar servers," there are only "altar boys" in cassock and surplice. The Mass is being celebrated ad orientem--that is, facing east--and the tabernacle is on the altar in the middle.

And Elvis Presley is banging on his guitar just outside of the sanctuary, singing, "Let us sing together to the Lord."

You either had to laugh or cry. Elvis and his hootenanny combo are not facing the sanctuary in worship; they are facing the people, with their backs to the altar and tabernacle. The people are being entertained, while the Mass takes place in the distant sanctuary. The priest and his altar boys seem oblivious to the vulgar behavior taking place just outside the sanctuary.

Of course the producers of the movie probably didn't have any kind of agenda. They were only representing what was taking place in many Catholic churches at the time. I'm personally grateful to Elvis for the contribution he has made in preserving our liturgical heritage.

If the contrast of the ancient Mass of the Catholic Church juxtaposed against the swiveling hips of Elvis Presley is either humorous or horrifying, that contrast is also instructive. Why did it happen in the first place? What has changed over the thirty years since this movie was released? Let me address those questions.

Why did it happen in the first place? I don't blame the Second Vatican Council. There is nothing in the conciliar documents that promote hootenanny Masses (although I once read that the first "Hootenanny Mass" took place, under the guidance of a certain Father Rivers, during the time of Council, in late 1964). I am persuaded that liturgical reform was hijacked by a Catholic culture that had an inferiority complex.

American Catholics couldn't break into national politics in any big way until John Kennedy denied that his Catholicism would have any effect on the way he governed. With many noble exceptions such as The Song of Bernadette and the Alfred Hitchcock film, I Confess, popular Catholic movies had very little to do with religion. Think of the Bing Crosby movies, such as The Bells of St. Mary's. Aside from the setting, there was nothing particularly religious about many of these movies. Catholics, like everyone else, delighted in Bing Crosby's personality, not in the fact that he was representing a distinctly Catholic point of view. Catholics were proud that Hollywood would use the trappings of Catholicism--but only the trappings, in most cases--to entertain. How else would an Elvis movie in which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was used as a backdrop have been permitted without a loud and boisterous Catholic outcry? American Catholic culture had an inferiority complex, and it was starving for affection. In my view, the Second Vatican Council simply lanced a festering boil. What has changed over the thirty years since that Elvis movie was released? In most of our parishes, Mass is now being celebrated facing the people. The high altar, if there ever was one, certainly is no longer being used. The tabernacle is no longer in the center of the church. Statues have been removed. Crucifixes have been replaced with quilts--of dubious quality, carrying dubious symbolism. The choir has pride of place near the sanctuary, usually in full view of the congregation--roughly where Elvis was performing in that film. The piano and guitar have become the instruments of choice. But today, the priest and his ministers no longer are oblivious to Elvis. They want a cut of the action. So the priest now competes with the musicians for as much attention and affection as he can muster. In short, after thirty years of liturgical reform, it is clear that Elvis has won. In many of our churches, the name of the game is entertainment and ego, not worship. For the sake of convenience, let's call the cumulative effect of these innovative practices since the Council, the "Elvis Rite." The key component to the Elvis Rite is self-absorption. How can the externals of the liturgy become self-absorbed--or as Cardinal Ratzinger writes, "a community closed in on itself?" Let me count the ways: the priest who behaves like a toastmaster rather than a mediator in Christ who offers the Holy Sacrifice; a priest who cannot resist the impulse to begin or conclude Mass with his own friendly words of welcome; the displacement of the tabernacle and altar as the center of attention at Mass, replaced by a "presider's chair"; -the cantors who flamboyantly lead the assembly with song from the lectern (a practice which, by the way, will be prohibited by the new liturgical legislation); the musicians who grow impatient with the hymns that are accessible to ordinary Catholics and agitate to sing hymns throughout the Mass, choosing music that can be performed only by trained voices

There are no glass ceilings in the Elvis Rite. "Ministry" is no longer a solemn privilege; it now seems to be considered an unalienable human right. Liturgical dance has become the self-absorbed behavior of choice in many churches. Now, everyone--priest, ministers, musicians--stumble over each other competing for the affection of the people. Masses with "themes" are also in vogue. We no longer simply celebrate a low Mass or a Solemn High Mass. We celebrate folk Masses and polka Masses and clown Masses and children's Masses with puppets. (I am not making this up.) SIGNS OF HOPE

Most readers, I am sure, have had many, many Elvis-Rite sightings over the years. (I have heard many stories, and I do not doubt them. In fact, I have a sizeable collection of photos of wacky liturgies.) But the important question for believing Catholics is: How might we rediscover our authentic liturgical heritage? How might the Roman Rite edge out the vestiges of the Elvis Rite? Although the war against the Elvis Rite will take years, I think there is good reason to hope that the Roman Rite will prevail. But that success will require a sustained campaign undertaken by dedicated Catholics who are committed to the cause of genuine liturgical reform.

Although I am in favor of a wide and generous application of the Ecclesia Dei indult (the Vatican's permission to celebrate the so-called Tridentine Mass), I think the battle for the Mass will continue to be in most of our parish churches in America where the post-concilar Mass is being celebrated. It is most comforting for a Catholic to find a recognizable heavenly home at Mass in any Catholic Church on Sunday morning and this is worth fighting for. So there is not only a need to stabilize liturgical practices under the rule of liturgical law, there is the need to promote liturgical reform according to the authentic teachings of the Second Vatican Council. (If you haven't read the Council's document on liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, you should do so; you will be pleasantly surprised.)

The presumption is that a priest will make a good-faith effort to celebrate Mass using traditional forms: forms that have been handed down to him in his liturgical formation. So, for example, there was no particular need in the America Church to legislate the norm that the faithful should kneel after the Agnus Dei. The gesture of reverence was a uniform traditional response. Only recently, when liturgical legalists called the practice in question, was it presumed necessary to address the practice in the proposed American liturgical adaptations.

In biology, any "growth" that is not natural to the organism is considered a disease. In the liturgy, any "growth" that is not natural to the celebration of the Mass is an accretion. An important purpose of liturgical legislation is to guard the liturgy against accretions and to identify (at least tacitly) and correct unauthorized liturgical practices. Liturgical legislation is--or ought to be--a means to prevent accretions that threaten to distort the liturgy as the "one Sacrifice." The contemporary impulse to lard over a traditional liturgy with a multiplicity of liturgical adaptations hence disfigures the liturgy. I have been calling this disfigurement the Elvis Rite!

The details of authentic liturgical legislation protect the integrity of the Mass--which is, after all, the marriage of heaven and earth, sealed by the blood of the Cross. This, of course, is the ideal. But the distance between the true Roman Rite and the self-absorbed accretions of the Elvis Rite can be discouraging.

I think help is in on the way.

LITURGIAM AUTHENTICAM AND THE SACRAMENTARY

As CWR readers know, the revised English-language edition of the Sacramentary (the book of prayers recited by the priest and faithful during Mass), prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), continues to languish in the Vatican. The new Sacramentary cannot be used until it receives authorization from Rome, and that authorization has not been forthcoming.

During the last week of November 2001, a report from Catholic News Service quoted Father James Moroney, the executive director of the US bishops' committee on liturgy, as saying that the ICEL Sacramentary will never be approved. By way of explanation he said that the Vatican will soon release a revision (the third) of the official Latin version of the Roman Missal in Latin, from which the prayers of the Sacramentary are drawn. But the existing ICEL translation of the Sacramentary is based on the previous revision of the Missal, and the truth is that there will not be many changes to the Latin in the new revision. So that reason alone would not have killed the ICEL Sacramentary.

The reason for the Vatican's unwillingness to approve the new English-language Sacramentary is, instead, a dissatisfaction with the accuracy of the translation. ICEL's "dynamic equivalent" method of translation has given us the poor translation of the Mass we have now. Remember mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa--"through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault?" Those same words are still in the Latin Missal, but in (mis)translating them, ICEL claims that the repetition is tedious in English. So the phrase is rendered simply as "through my fault." I could furnish many such examples of ICEL's mistranslation of the Latin texts of the Mass.

In April of this year (2001), the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW) issued a new instruction on liturgical translation, Liturgiam Authenticam, outlining the principles that should guide the translation of liturgical texts. This was an authoritative document, approved by Pope John Paul II. And it is clear that the ICEL translation does not measure up to the new Vatican guidelines.

Liturgiam Authenticam emphasizes that liturgical translation must be "exact in wording and free from all ideological influence". Translation is not to be "creative innovation"; its fundamental purpose is to render "the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language... without paraphrases or glosses." Among the specific changes that most Catholics may notice first is the instruction's explicit requirement that the first word of the Nicene Creed--Credo:"I believe"--be translated accurately. For thirty years, English-speaking Catholics have said "we believe". "And with your spirit" will also return to liturgical use, replacing the current English translation: "And also with you."

I am pleased to report that the Vatican instruction takes direct aim at the Elvis Rite as I have defined it. The words of Sacred Scripture and the liturgical texts, the document says, "are not intended primarily to be a sort of mirror of the interior dispositions of the faithful; rather they express truths that transcend the limits of time and space." That is, the translation must not to be time-bound or limited by any political, ideological, or theological theories of the translators.

Although the document never directly mentions so-called "inclusive language"--a feminist-driven attempt to neuter English that has affected almost all Scripture and liturgical translations since the mid-1970s--there is no ambiguity about the matter in the new instruction. The standard English generics, "man", and "mankind", are to be retained in English liturgical translations. This is in contrast to the US bishops' 1990 document which had proposed "person," "people,, or "human family" be used in translating these same words.

Words in the Latin that we almost never hear in the English are to be translated accurately. Words and phrases such as "we beseech," "to be considered worthy," "most merciful," "majesty," and "charity," are part of the English sacral vocabulary. Liturgiam Authenticam never even mentions a low-level 1969 Vatican statement on translation. This outdated set of translation principles promoted replacing words in the original text with terms deemed more "relevant." (ICEL calls this the "dynamic equivalent" method of translation.) So it rejected customary sacral language, and advocated "adaptations" that would appeal to the taste of the times. By contrast, the new instruction sees great importance in a specifically sacral vocabulary. The Vatican guidelines restore the sacral vocabulary in translation.

Hence the new Vatican document recognizes the principle enunciated in the Second Vatican Council that liturgical change should be "organic." In other words, the Mass should develop gradually while retaining the integrity of the Church's history and heritage, rather than be forced to conform to the "spirit of the age." Goodbye Elvis!

In the early 1990s, the translators actually tried to tamper with the translation of the Lord's Prayer. The instruction states that texts "which the faithful will have committed to memory" should not be changed notably "without real necessity"--and when changes are necessary, they should be made "at one time" and be explained to people. This would seem to protect the traditional translation of the Our Father.

As you call to mind many of the musical expressions of the Elvis Rite, you might identify the tendency to break up the Gloria with certain refrains. There is another practice of adding phrases to texts such as the Lamb of God. The Vatican translation guidelines would put an end to these aberrations: "paraphrases are not to be substituted with the intention of making them more easily set to music, nor may hymns considered generically equivalent be employed in their place."

The document concludes with some strict administrative directions to national bishops' conferences. The instructions should prevent certain bureaucratic end-runs that have been successful in the past.

THE REVISED GENERAL INSTRUCTION

Another hopeful sign is the recent revision of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal ("General Instruction"). The purpose of the General Instruction is regulate in detail the way the Mass of the Roman Rite is celebrated. Earlier this year (2001), the Vatican released an updated General Instruction that was quickly translated into English by the US bishops' committee on the liturgy. Although from my point of view there continue to be some weaknesses in the legislation, in the main I believe that most Catholics would be generally happy with the Mass if it were celebrated in strict accordance with the new General Instruction. There is very little that is new in the revised General Instruction, and a number of traditional liturgical practices have been ratified.

There are some soft spots in the legislation. For example all ministries (except for a few nuances) in the service of the altar are open to men and women or girls and boys. Complicating matters are the so-called "adaptations" approved by the American bishops in November of 2001. Most of the adaptations seem to be harmless. Others--such as making it the norm for parishioners to receive Communion while standing, ratify a contemporary practice at the expense of a traditional practice. I think this is unfortunate. (But if it is any consolation, the Vatican intervened to make sure that under these new norms a priest could not refuse Communion to someone who chose to receive on his knees.)

After the release of the new General Instruction, many in the American liturgical establishment apparently were worried that the Elvis Rite was in jeopardy. So there were complaints that the Vatican did not consult the American liturgical establishment and they grumbled that the translation of the General Instruction from Latin into English was done without the "dynamic equivalent" method of translation long employed by ICEL.

In the aftermath of that outcry, the bishops' committee on the liturgy gave ICEL the chance to present its translation to the American bishops at their November meeting. But the bishops' liturgy committee recommended against approval of that translation, and their recommendation was approved. The bishops overwhelmingly rejected the translation and sent it back to ICEL to be reworked.

This is a particularly significant development. For over thirty years, ICEL and the bishops' committee on the liturgy were almost indistinguishable in agenda and practice. In my memory, this is the first time the bishops' liturgy committee has ever recommended that an ICEL project be rejected by the body of American bishops. With the cold realization that the ICEL Sacramentary (a project that took over a decade to complete) does not measure up to the new Vatican translation guidelines, the ICEL staff must now realize that they serve at the pleasure of the Holy See and the bishops. The developments of the past year can only be seen as major rebukes to ICEL's poor liturgical practices.

OUR ATTITUDE AT MASS

Like the fight against terrorism, the fight against the vestiges of the Elvis Rite will probably continue through most of my lifetime. I don't suppose that I will live to see total victory. What should our attitude be in the interim? Naturally we should pray; we know what it is we want; and we should work hard in supporting apostolates that promote the authentic Roman rite. But most of us will continue to suffer with the Elvis Rite in some form or another. This is an aspect of the fallen human condition.

Let me conclude with this analogy.

When this essay appears in print, we will be celebrating the feast of Christmas, the birthday of the Lord. All of the beautiful decorations we see around the feast of Christmas (even though a good deal of the decorations appear prematurely, and disappear before the feast is over)--celebrate the feast day of the Birth of the Lord. But if we are not careful we can easily allow the secular culture to rob us of the profound yet joyful Christian meaning of the pervasive Christian symbols.

I sometimes semi-seriously suggest that since so many people want to take Christ out of Christmas and call the holy day a "Winter Holiday," we should go all of the way. The Christmas lights, the holly, Santa Claus, the poinsettias--almost every joyful image we can imagine for this time of year--belongs to Christians. If secularists want to take religion out of their "winter holiday," we might argue that we should go all the way.

So, then, let's remove the evergreen decorations--which remind us of God's eternity--from our government schools, from our public streets. Let's remove the holly--which foreshadows the Crown of Thorns--from our shopping malls. In short, since almost every "Winter Holiday" festive decoration symbolizes Christ and his saints (remember Santa Claus and St. Nicholas?), let Christians everywhere accede to the demands of the ACLU and refuse to allow these symbols to grace our towns and streets. What a barren world December would be in America! And then let us retreat to our churches, our homes, our parochial schools, and find there the true spirit of Christmas!

Or on the other hand, maybe we should indulge the secular culture and allow them to use our symbols in their profane way as we delight in the mischief Christians have caused! The secularists cannot escape the influence of Christianity because, whether they like it or not, as decadent as our culture is, it is saturated with the remnants of a Christian heritage. Such is the continuing legacy of the Incarnation.

We would do well to avoid the trap of having too much contempt for our society. The Incarnation reveals this much: No society is so contemptible that it has not been embraced by Christ. For when the Word was made flesh, he took unto himself all human flesh and consecrated it. And he carried that consecrated flesh, wounded as it is by our sins, in perfect and free obedience to the Father's will, to the Cross. And in the glorious Resurrection, all mankind was transformed. This is the Gospel message. And even the remnant of a Christian culture, indelibly inscribed on our society, continues--however imperfectly--to proclaim the Incarnation and the Redemption of Man.

When I speak of the "Elvis Rite," I am hoping to disparage with humor serious defects in the way the Mass is being celebrated, not in any way the true nature of the Mass. The Mass is not only the representation of the Cross and the Resurrection, it is the representation of the Incarnation. In a sense, the Mass embraces mankind, including our wrinkles. Even in the best of times ,when the personalities of the priest and sacred ministers did not compete for the attention and affection of the congregation, there were the usual distractions. People coughed; babies gurgled; mothers struggled with their 2-year-olds; the priest stumbled over the Latin.

We would do well to avoid the trap of having so much contempt for the Elvis Rite that we refuse to see the fundamental Christian influence. The Incarnation reveals this much: Even the Elvis Rite has been embraced by Christ as he carries the Cross of our sins. And even the remnants of the Roman Rite, indelibly inscribed during the celebration of the Mass, continues however imperfectly to proclaim and represent the Incarnation and the Redemption of Man.

So we have to struggle hard to make the correct Catholic distinctions during our participation in Holy Mass. For some mysterious reason, God wants us to endure this trial. Is it easy to be distracted by Elvis at Mass? You bet it is. But if the Mass is valid, we like Christ must embrace the Cross and, with God's grace, enter into the sacred mysteries to the best of our abilities in imitation of Christ.

[AUTHOR ID] Father Jerry J. Pokorsky is the rector of St. Peter's church in Washington, Virginia and co-founder of Credo.