Advice on letter to pastor regarding Redemptionis Sacramentum

[mercygate]

We’ve all been told to address concerns about Redemptionis Sacramentum to the pastor before moving up a notch. I’m setting myself up as a target for y’all. Is this draft officious? Snide? One must live with one’s pastor come what may; he already thinks I’m a pain:

Dear Pastor,

A lot of people have either read Redemptionis Sacramentum or have seen parts of it in the popular press. People will surely be confused by a couple of things we do in this parish, which *appear *to sidestep some points of that instruction. People may not be aware of things like the dubium which the American bishops filed in Rome (and which I believe was rejected?), or of where a decision of the USCCB trumps an “Instruction,” from Rome, or of where a bishop has the authority either to disregard a point of the instruction or to delegate that authority to a pastor. Perhaps a good pastoral effort would be to explain some of these things in your weekly column, specifically addressing several points that have people in the parish scratching their heads.
I refer to the following in *RS *(bracketed numbers are footnotes in *RS; *bold text is mine:

[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

1. When one avoids the word “men” in the Creed, a person who knows Greek might understand that one is avoiding the English gender-specific word because it incorrectly implies “males.” I don’t think most people really understand that. A brief explanation would be helpful, along with an explanation of why it is acceptable to make such changes on one’s own. RS speaks of “the texts of the Sacred Liturgy;” most people think that means the whole liturgy, not just, say, the Consecration prayer.

Under this same heading, it would be good to defend the continuing practice of replacing the threefold Agnus Dei with “Bread of Life . . Prince of Peace . . .King of Kings . . .” – especially since we usually end up with only a threefold prayer anyway, so the extra time provided by stringing these other phrases together is not practically warranted. You could explain why this is not “altering or varying at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy.” Saying that it is found in the songbook might not sell because those books are not universally understood to be authoritative.

[65.] It should be borne in mind that **any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1.

**[66.] The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants”; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association.[145] **This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom. **

1. Our deacon candidate sometimes delivers “reflections” which some of us cannot distinguish from a homily, though he is still a layman. It would be helpful to explain why is this OK. For example, are these “reflections” not homilies because the candidate is not ordained? Has the bishop authorized this practice for this diocese, and if so, by what authority? Has the bishop delegated the decision to you, and if so, by what authority? It would be useful to avoid the argument that he “needs the practice” since there is no reason why the first few months after Ordination should not be considered “practice,” is there?

(continued)

 

[mercygate]

[117.] Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the **norms of tradition and of the liturgical books.[205] The Bishops’ Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region,[206] so that honour will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, **or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate.[207]

1. We are still using glass vessels for distribution of the Precious Blood to the laity. It might help to provide a reference to the USCCB approval of the Waterford crystal chalice as a “precious” material (they have, haven’t they?) And you might present a rationale for the continued use of glass for the Precious Blood distributed to the congregation. A clear explanation here will be helpful in light of the language of RS, which seems to prohibit the use of glass or clay *whatever the artistic merit *of those objects may be. If the clay instruments are still being used in the school, one might, delineate how they are not – in the language of RS – “common,” and explain that they do not break easily.

Faithfully,
Mercygate

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Your letter is way to sarcastic and cynical. Just my humble opinion. I would shorten it, and get to the point. Don’t make it sound like you’re challenging the priest.

I’m sure someones else here will have better advice to offer.

 

[mercygate]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Your letter is way to sarcastic and cynical. Just my humble opinion. I would shorten it, and get to the point. Don’t make it sound like you’re challenging the priest.

I’m sure someones else here will have better advice to offer.

Thanks, Dominus! Just what I was asking for. There is no WAY I want to sound cynical (although the history of my parish warrants it). I’m a great believer in sitting on something like this for at least a week – or more.

 

[bear06]

I would just state that you’ve recently read RS and you seem to be seeing things in your church that seem to be in conflict and list them with the passage dealing with them from RS and ask for a clarification as to whether or not these things are in conflict. You will probably get some silly responses that point out that the Bishop has allowed this. Then you can go to the bishop and ask him, etc. You just want to establish a paper trail. They either 1) know what they are doing is wrong or 2) don’t have a clue and you might help them. I’ve found that the littlest commentary you use the better for making you look like a victim in all of this. Victim status is very important. The Church has already done the commentary for you. Good luck!

 

[Dr.Colossus]

I hate to say this, but the letter sounds self-righteous. It looks like you’ve put in a bunch of italicized Latin to look important, and whether or not that was the intention I could easily see your pastor seeing it like that.

In the only letter I have ever written to my pastor, I did everything I could to keep it *humble *(and believe me, it was tough). The thing that must be avoided is anything that looks like you’re trying to tell the priest how to do his job, which he will likely take offense at.

Another point I think detracts from the impact of this letter is the little questions you’ve placed in parenthases. They make you look like you doubt what you’re talking about, and therefore the priest may doubt you as well. This is a letter, which means you have time to check your sources.

That having been said, I think the material you have presented is solid, and I wish you the best of luck effecting liturgical change at your parish.

 

[mercygate]

Listen, Troops!

I’m definitely NOT offended by your constructive criticism, and I appreciate your comments more than you know. I KNOW I am a giant pain. As you have pointed out, one must be as simple/humble as possible. I truly appreciate your comments – that’s why I asked for them.

I’ll revise this in a day or two, and try to cut it down to a couple of hundred words at most.

Query: how do you make questions like this NOT seem to be a challenge? Particularly when the pastor takes EVERYTHING as a challenge.

 

[FrmrTrad]

I’ve never written a letter like this one. Perhaps I might practice on yours a bit.

Dear Reverend Father:

I have read the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum and I have a few questions about what we do in our parish. First, in section 59 the Instruction says that the clergy should not alter the liturgical texts; does replacing the word “men” in the Creed qualify as an alteration? Also, is it an alteration to say “Bread of Life…Prince of Peace…King of Kings” instead of the threefold Agnus Dei?

In sections 65-6 RS indicates that the non-ordained should not give homilies. Our deacon candidate offers “reflections” during the mass, but could these in effect be homilies?

Section 117 of RS indicates that we should not use breakable materials for the chalice; could the crystal we are using qualify as breakable?

Thank you for your guidance.

 

[mercygate]

FrmrTrad:

I’ve never written a letter like this one. Perhaps I might practice on yours a bit.

Dear Reverend Father:

I have read the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum and I have a few questions about what we do in our parish. First, in section 59 the Instruction says that the clergy should not alter the liturgical texts; does replacing the word “men” in the Creed qualify as an alteration? Also, is it an alteration to say “Bread of Life…Prince of Peace…King of Kings” instead of the threefold Agnus Dei?

In sections 65-6 RS indicates that the non-ordained should not give homilies. Our deacon candidate offers “reflections” during the mass, but could these in effect be homilies?

Section 117 of RS indicates that we should not use breakable materials for the chalice; could the crystal we are using qualify as breakable?

Thank you for your guidance.

Thanks, FrmrTrad. This is great! Would you believe it – this is actually much more like the way I usually apparoach things than the lengthy screed that started this thread!

 

[FrmrTrad]

Sometimes it helps to get something out of your system.

 

[mercygate]

In my original attempt, I was trying to guess at what all the legitimate reasons might be for these apparent irregularities. Sometimes, the Columbo approach is better. Let management come up with the answers.

 

[bear06]

Let management come up with the answers.

This is also known as giving them enough rope to hang themselves. It’s good to ask them to correct you on your thinking because the guys who know they are going against RS love to expound on their deluded reasoning for doing so. Collect evidence, burn it onto a CD and send it off to Rome!

 

[Mysty101]

mercygate:

In my original attempt, I was trying to guess at what all the legitimate reasons might be for these apparent irregularities. Sometimes, the Columbo approach is better. Let management come up with the answers.

I had posted this in another thread, but I’ll copy rather than give a link
(Since I wrote this post, I learned that many US parishes are implimenting the RS instructions on the First Sunday of Advent)

Hi,

I have been thinking a lot since RS, and see many very well intentioned people here, who are quite distressed with the delays in implementation.

Just remember a few things, before you grab the pen and return receipt request PO form.

If you are planning on staying in your Parish please, please talk to your Pastor informally before doing anything. Just ask a few questions about the document and his thoughts on it. Try to be friendly, yet respectful—you do not want to get him on the defensive.

If he says that he is waiting for instructions from the Bishop, either just accept that answer, or call the Bishop’s office (also informally, even anonymously if no one asks your name) and just ask a few questions there.

Remember everything else in the Church takes a long time, so this “immediately” would only be probable if the Vatican sent instructions and staff for the procedure changes, while ensuring that every parishioner were contacted and also provided the new sacred vessels, if they are needed.

Also remember (especially in the changes for consecrating and distributing the Precious Blood) the pouring of the Precious Blood is a procedure being reprobated, which was under question by the USCCB. It is not some off-the-wall blatant abuse. It was allowed before RS. Your Pastor may be caught in the discussion between the Bishop and the Vatican, but may not want to discuss that aspect of the situation.

Of course you are within your right to complain, and some even consider it your obligation, but perhaps a few informal questions or discussions may produce better results. Remember no one likes a subordinate telling him what to do, even when it is the right thing, especially when he is in the middle of working out the changes already.

If your Pastor seems unwilling to discuss it, write him an informal note. Wait a little while and ask him if he read it (just asking him if he got it may not be sufficient–ask him specifically if he read it) At this point he may be willing to discuss it, but he may not. Even if he does not wish to discuss it with you, this does not mean he is not considering your point. Then wait again and see if anything changes. If nothing changes, tell him that you wish to discuss this, and also tell him that if he refuses to discuss it, you feel obligated to go over his head. All these steps may or may not help the problem, but it is important to respect you pastor as your spiritual leader as well as a human being.

---

 

[mercygate]

I want to thank all of you who took the time to consider my question and respond to it. I can’t imagine receiving better counsel from anyone.