|
47. Reading the account of the institution of the Eucharist in the
Synoptic Gospels, we are struck by the simplicity and the
“solemnity” with which Jesus, on the evening of the Last Supper,
instituted this great sacrament. There is an episode which in some way
serves as its prelude: the anointing at Bethany. A woman, whom
John identifies as Mary the sister of Lazarus, pours a flask of
costly ointment over Jesus' head, which provokes from the disciples
– and from Judas in particular (cf. Mt 26:8; Mk 14:4;
Jn 12:4) – an indignant response, as if this act, in light of
the needs of the poor, represented an intolerable “waste”. But
Jesus' own reaction is completely different. While in no way
detracting from the duty of charity towards the needy, for whom the
disciples must always show special care – “the poor you will always
have with you” (Mt 26, 11; Mk 14:7; cf. Jn 12:8)
– he looks towards his imminent death and burial, and sees this act of
anointing as an anticipation of the honour which his body will continue
to merit even after his death, indissolubly bound as it is to the
mystery of his person.
The account continues, in the Synoptic Gospels, with Jesus'
charge to the disciples to prepare carefully the “large upper room”
needed for the Passover meal (cf. Mk 14:15; Lk 22:12)
and with the narration of the institution of the Eucharist.
Reflecting at least in part the Jewish rites of the Passover meal
leading up to the singing of the Hallel (cf. Mt 26:30; Mk
14:26), the story presents with sobriety and solemnity, even in
the variants of the different traditions, the words spoken by Christ
over the bread and wine, which he made into concrete expressions of the
handing over of his body and the shedding of his blood. All these
details are recorded by the Evangelists in the light of a praxis of the
“breaking of the bread” already well-established in the early
Church. But certainly from the time of Jesus on, the event of Holy
Thursday has shown visible traces of a liturgical “sensibility”
shaped by Old Testament tradition and open to being reshaped in
Christian celebrations in a way consonant with the new content of
Easter.
48. Like the woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany, the Church has
feared no “extravagance”, devoting the best of her resources to
expressing her wonder and adoration before the unsurpassable gift of the
Eucharist. No less than the first disciples charged with preparing
the “large upper room”, she has felt the need, down the centuries
and in her encounters with different cultures, to celebrate the
Eucharist in a setting worthy of so great a mystery. In the wake of
Jesus' own words and actions, and building upon the ritual heritage
of Judaism, the Christian liturgy was born. Could there ever be an
adequate means of expressing the acceptance of that self-gift which the
divine Bridegroom continually makes to his Bride, the Church, by
bringing the Sacrifice offered once and for all on the Cross to
successive generations of believers and thus becoming nourishment for
all the faithful? Though the idea of a “banquet” naturally suggests
familiarity, the Church has never yielded to the temptation to
trivialize this “intimacy” with her Spouse by forgetting that he is
also her Lord and that the “banquet” always remains a sacrificial
banquet marked by the blood shed on Golgotha. The Eucharistic
Banquet is truly a “sacred” banquet, in which the simplicity of the
signs conceals the unfathomable holiness of God: O sacrum convivium,
in quo Christus sumitur! The bread which is broken on our altars,
offered to us as wayfarers along the paths of the world, is panis
angelorum, the bread of angels, which cannot be approached except with
the humility of the centurion in the Gospel: “Lord, I am not
worthy to have you come under my roof ” (Mt 8:8; Lk 7:6).
49. With this heightened sense of mystery, we understand how the
faith of the Church in the mystery of the Eucharist has found
historical expression not only in the demand for an interior disposition
of devotion, but also in outward forms meant to evoke and emphasize the
grandeur of the event being celebrated. This led progressively to the
development of a particular form of regulating the Eucharistic
liturgy, with due respect for the various legitimately constituted
ecclesial traditions. On this foundation a rich artistic heritage also
developed. Architecture, sculpture, painting and music, moved by
the Christian mystery, have found in the Eucharist, both directly
and indirectly, a source of great inspiration.
Such was the case, for example, with architecture, which witnessed
the transition, once the historical situation made it possible, from
the first places of Eucharistic celebration in the domus or “homes”
of Christian families to the solemn basilicas of the early centuries,
to the imposing cathedrals of the Middle Ages, and to the churches,
large and small, which gradually sprang up throughout the lands touched
by Christianity. The designs of altars and tabernacles within Church
interiors were often not simply motivated by artistic inspiration but
also by a clear understanding of the mystery. The same could be said
for sacred music, if we but think of the inspired Gregorian melodies
and the many, often great, composers who sought to do justice to the
liturgical texts of the Mass. Similarly, can we overlook the
enormous quantity of artistic production, ranging from fine
craftsmanship to authentic works of art, in the area of Church
furnishings and vestments used for the celebration of the Eucharist?
It can be said that the Eucharist, while shaping the Church and her
spirituality, has also powerfully affected “culture”, and the arts
in particular.
50. In this effort to adore the mystery grasped in its ritual and
aesthetic dimensions, a certain “competition” has taken place between
Christians of the West and the East. How could we not give
particular thanks to the Lord for the contributions to Christian art
made by the great architectural and artistic works of the
Greco-Byzantine tradition and of the whole geographical area marked
by Slav culture? In the East, sacred art has preserved a remarkably
powerful sense of mystery, which leads artists to see their efforts at
creating beauty not simply as an expression of their own talents, but
also as a genuine service to the faith. Passing well beyond mere
technical skill, they have shown themselves docile and open to the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The architectural and mosaic splendours of the Christian East and
West are a patrimony belonging to all believers; they contain a hope,
and even a pledge, of the desired fullness of communion in faith and in
celebration. This would presuppose and demand, as in Rublëv's
famous depiction of the Trinity, a profoundly Eucharistic Church in
which the presence of the mystery of Christ in the broken bread is as
it were immersed in the ineffable unity of the three divine Persons,
making of the Church herself an “icon” of the Trinity.
Within this context of an art aimed at expressing, in all its
elements, the meaning of the Eucharist in accordance with the
Church's teaching, attention needs to be given to the norms
regulating the construction and decor of sacred buildings. As history
shows and as I emphasized in my Letter to Artists,[100] the Church
has always left ample room for the creativity of artists. But sacred
art must be outstanding for its ability to express adequately the
mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church's faith and in
accordance with the pastoral guidelines appropriately laid down by
competent Authority. This holds true both for the figurative arts and
for sacred music.
51. The development of sacred art and liturgical discipline which
took place in lands of ancient Christian heritage is also taking place
on continents where Christianity is younger. This was precisely the
approach supported by the Second Vatican Council on the need for
sound and proper “inculturation”. In my numerous Pastoral Visits
I have seen, throughout the world, the great vitality which the
celebration of the Eucharist can have when marked by the forms, styles
and sensibilities of different cultures. By adaptation to the changing
conditions of time and place, the Eucharist offers sustenance not only
to individuals but to entire peoples, and it shapes cultures inspired
by Christianity.
It is necessary, however, that this important work of adaptation be
carried out with a constant awareness of the ineffable mystery against
which every generation is called to measure itself. The “treasure”
is too important and precious to risk impoverishment or compromise
through forms of experimentation or practices introduced without a
careful review on the part of the competent ecclesiastical authorities.
Furthermore, the centrality of the Eucharistic mystery demands that
any such review must be undertaken in close association with the Holy
See. As I wrote in my Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Ecclesia in Asia, “such cooperation is essential because the Sacred
Liturgy expresses and celebrates the one faith professed by all and,
being the heritage of the whole Church, cannot be determined by local
Churches in isolation from the universal Church”.[101]
52. All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs
to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is
their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi
and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the
community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the
universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be
lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar
liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and
adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source
of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has
led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms”
chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium
as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are
often completely inappropriate.
I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the
liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with
great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the
authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest
meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the
celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated.
The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of
Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the
Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of
factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time,
too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms
as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made
present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully
celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities
which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their
love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper
meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the
Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including
prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject.
No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands:
it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with
disregard for its sacredness and its universality.
|
|