Over this weekend, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released the Note Gestis Verbisque (On the Validity of the Sacraments), following up on a 2020 response made by the dicastery to two dubia about Baptism. Gestis Verbisque (GV) does not attempt to provide the rationale for any specific sacramental formula. Rather, it examines the importance of such formulae in general. Quoting the 2020 document, GV asserts that when sacramental ministers cite pastoral motivations for adjusting sacramental formulae, such “recourse . . . masks, even unconsciously, a subjective deviation and a manipulative will” (par. 3).
Far be it from me to advocate unauthorized experimental changes and adaptations to sacramental formulae. Yet, as I read GV, I recall the landmark 2001 Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, issued by what was then the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. This document specified that the anaphora of Addai and Mari, used by the Assyrian Church of the East, was a valid eucharistic prayer even though it contains no institution narrative (“This is my Body . . . This is my Blood”). In a key passage, the Guidelines argued that “the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession” (par. 3).
To be sure, in this same paragraph, the Guidelines also pointed to the antiquity of this prayer and to the status of the Assyrian Church of the East.
The Catholic Church recognizes the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found “true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist” (U.R., n. 15).
Yet, if the Vatican can discern the words of Eucharistic Institution “in a dispersed euchological way,” in the anaphora of Addai and Mari, is there no chance of finding an ad litteram expression of other sacramental formulae in a “dispersed” way? To an extent, this question oversimplifies matters. Apart from the factors applying more or less uniquely to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari noted above, this question leaves to one side, for example, the matter of the authorization to use other formulae, which must take heed of Sacrosanctum Concilium 22, which holds that
Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Even so, I wonder about the ramifications of the 2001 Guidelines for how one understands sacramental validity and insistence on specific words.