Bishop authority re: liturgical worship

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pemberley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pemberley

Guest
Hello everyone,

As a member of our parish Liturgy Committee, it seems as though the frequent response to questions re: the legitimacy of a particular common practice i.e. (hand-holding during the Our Father -including extraordinary ministers/lector holding hands around the altar, “liturgical dance”) is whether or not the Bishop, or even a priest, approves of the practice. Or the bottom line for quite a few people seems to be whether or not they are comfortable with them.

I have read so many threads re: these current practices, I almost wish not to bring it up. However, the question, at least for me in my quest for continuing education, remains:

My question is, how is this made compatible with our obedience to the Holy See?
For example, “Redemptionis Sacramentum” (#28) states:
“All liturgical norms that a conference of bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.”
Is it true that Bishops have the authority to approve of practices not mentioned in the GIRM or Sacramentary within the Mass? Where is this stated authoritatively (not simply opinion)? What does “the recognitio” mean, and how are laypeople informed if it is received in a diocese? When does a non-prescribed practice introduced in the Mass, such as those cited above, become permitted under the semantics of “custom?”

When asked what is to prevent people from adopting all sorts of postures/practices not stated in the liturgical norms, the response is often “common sense.” We may more assuredly be guided: 1. in the recognition that the GIRM cannot possibly comment on the prohibition of every conceivable notion, and 2. in the adherence to liturgical norms, inspired out of a humble faith and trusting obedience in His Church.

I would appreciate any information! May Our Lord bless you on your journey to Him.
 
Quite simply, the Mass should be celebrated exactly as set out in the GIRM. No additions or deletions.

No Bishop has the authority to make changes to the Mass himself. From what I understand, it is for a Conference of Bishops (e.g. the USCCB, or, in my case the Antilles Episcopal Conference - AEC) to decide what they would like to introduce. They then must submit their proposal to the Holy See. If they receive permission, then each individual bishop in the conference has the choice to introduce the new practice or not, as he sees fit.

Some want “inculturalisation” - bringing local practices into the liturgy in a particular country. While this is something that the Vatican says can be done, it also insists that it must be done slowly and carefully - not just willy-nilly, as sometimes happens. And the whole proposal still has to be submitted to the Vatican for approval before being introduced.

I really wish all our bishops were obedient and faithful, instead of insisting that they can do what they want!! Many of them seem to operate on the premise that it is easier to get approval for something already intrenched in practice than to follow proper procedure!! This is what happened with the indult for receiving Holy Communion in the hand. It was, in fact, voted down by most bishops in the world, but still the indult was given.
 
The 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) includes a new section that provides clarification about what the bishop can decide.

It is at usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter9.shtml

This section was not in the 1975 GIRM.

It provides a list of what a bishop can decide on his own and another list for what requires a decision of a Conference of Bishops and approval (i.e. recognitio) from the Vatican.

Here is part of it on the bishop:

“387. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends, must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.”
 
Thank you both for your (name removed by moderator)ut and information!

In referencing Chapter IX of the GIRM, #390 indicates that it is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on adaptations of the GIRM, "once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See".
I often see documents published from the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, which in reality have no canonical authority, as they have not met the criterion (2/3 affirmative vote of the conference and recognitio of the Apostolic See). Confusing!!! How is the layperson to know if this has been granted?
Thanks again for any (name removed by moderator)ut…God bless.
 
40.png
Pemberley:
Thank you both for your (name removed by moderator)ut and information!

In referencing Chapter IX of the GIRM, #390 indicates that it is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on adaptations of the GIRM, "once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See".
I often see documents published from the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, which in reality have no canonical authority, as they have not met the criterion (2/3 affirmative vote of the conference and recognitio of the Apostolic See). Confusing!!! How is the layperson to know if this has been granted?
Thanks again for any (name removed by moderator)ut…God bless.
Click to expand...
Generally there is a letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. For example at
usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml. Another unusual example, where the letter says that the recognitio is not required, is at usccb.org/liturgy/innews/0205.shtml .

According to the Vatican’s 2001 Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, n. 68, at the beginning of translations of the liturgical books: “Also to be placed there are the decrees by means of which the recognitio of the Holy See has been granted for the translations, or at least the mention of the recognitio is to be made together with the date, month, year, and protocol number of the decree issued by the Dicastery.”

At least some recognitos (perhaps all) are published in Notitiae, the offical journal of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
 
In reality, each diocese is like a different country. The local Ordinary (Bishop) by apostolic succession has a lot of latitude. The only bishops that you ever hear of getting excommunicated, are those that ordain women or some other great heresy. Rome is very slow in responding to serious matters let alone such as posture Etc. The Italian staff are very slow paced and take their nap each day. Fr. Mitch on EWTN was right on when he said the following: With all the arguing about posture, the focus has come off of Jesus in the Mass.

Deacon Tony SFO
 
Thank you plato3 for your response! I can appreciate what Fr Mitch is saying in the quote you provided below:
“Fr. Mitch on EWTN was right on when he said the following: With all the arguing about posture, the focus has come off of Jesus in the Mass”

However, putting it as diplomatically as possible, I find it disheartening being surrounded by posture (and wording) novelities during Holy Mass. I find myself (which I’m sure is simply an indication of a personal shortcoming) having to exert such effort not to become angry and stay focused on Our Lord. Perhaps the answer lies in the battle of this effort, and looking upon this as a cross given to Our Lord out of love for Him.

Thanks again, and God bless.
 
All good stuff so far. I would add a bit concerning your question concerning novelties and local tradition in the liturgy.

In the GIRM there is a short section concerning novilty being introduced into the liturgy. The instruction is that no person is to introduce any practice or action into the liturgy apart from what is given by permission from the Holy See. At times some feel that because there is a local practice that has developed (such as holding hands during the Our Father) and the rubrics are silent about what is to be done at that moment then the practice is ok because of the silence in the rubrics. However, the contrary is true in that when there is silence there is no action and no novilty should be introduced to “fill the space.”

The liturgical custom or “local tradition” clause is not well understood today. Some feel that just because it has always been done that way in their life time that it has the weight of local custom. However, St. Pius V gave the guide post to determine the term a practice must exist to have weight of custom. In the Bull that codified the so called Tridentine Mass he gave a period of 200 years. Anything (including liturgies) that had not existed for about 200 years from the time of his proclomation was supressed. Thus, untill such practices as holding hands during the Our Father have been around for another 160 years I don’t think it can have any force as custom.
 
Thank you Mosher, for that guideline on the # of years necessary for something to be considered “custom” from Pius V. I’d never heard that before and may be helpful sometime.

I’m going to throw out 2 last quick ?s on this topic:

How common is it for recognitios to be granted to bishops i.e. for some of the practices mentioned above?

Where can you access Notitiae, and are the recognitios granted to bishops easy to find i.e. organized by diocese or chronologically?

Thanks for everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and help!
 
40.png
Pemberley:
Thank you Mosher, for that guideline on the # of years necessary for something to be considered “custom” from Pius V. I’d never heard that before and may be helpful sometime.

I’m going to throw out 2 last quick ?s on this topic:

How common is it for recognitios to be granted to bishops i.e. for some of the practices mentioned above?

Where can you access Notitiae, and are the recognitios granted to bishops easy to find i.e. organized by diocese or chronologically?

Thanks for everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and help!
Click to expand...
Notititae journals may be part of the library of a Catholic diocese. (In my case they are at the Mannix Library in Melbourne, Australia). For you perhaps it would be worth trying:

Catholic Library Association, WNY Chapter
Villa Maria College Library
240 Pine Ridge Road
Cheektowaga, NY 14075
Phone: 716-896-0700 (from buffalodiocese.org/dio_org.htm ).

The recognitios are listed chronologically, with headings of the country they apply to. So no, they are not easy to find.

I have never heard of a recognito being granted requiring or permitting holding hands during the Our Father.
 
40.png
mosher:
The liturgical custom or “local tradition” clause is not well understood today. Some feel that just because it has always been done that way in their life time that it has the weight of local custom. However, St. Pius V gave the guide post to determine the term a practice must exist to have weight of custom. In the Bull that codified the so called Tridentine Mass he gave a period of 200 years. Anything (including liturgies) that had not existed for about 200 years from the time of his proclomation was supressed. Thus, untill such practices as holding hands during the Our Father have been around for another 160 years I don’t think it can have any force as custom.
Click to expand...
Whiel you are correct that St. Pius V suppressed all rites that were not at least 200 years old, I believe the requirement in canon law for custom to attain the force of law is 30 years. Of course, practices that are specifically reprobate are often explicitly stated to be incapable of attaining “custom” status.

As to the earlier remarks about recognitios, I don’t think individuals bishops may deviate from a norm that has received the recognitio. Bishops’ conferences for the most part possess absolutely no authority. If their committee on liturgy puts out a document, there is nothing binding upon any bishop other than his goodwill and esteem of common endeavor. But in one of the specific circumstances in which canon law gives the bishops’ conference authority to petition for adaptations that then become particular law, the granting of a recognitio makes that particular adaptation the law for the whole conference, if I understand correctly.
 
Andreas Hofer:
Whiel you are correct that St. Pius V suppressed all rites that were not at least 200 years old, I believe the requirement in canon law for custom to attain the force of law is 30 years. Of course, practices that are specifically reprobate are often explicitly stated to be incapable of attaining “custom” status.

As to the earlier remarks about recognitios, I don’t think individuals bishops may deviate from a norm that has received the recognitio. Bishops’ conferences for the most part possess absolutely no authority. If their committee on liturgy puts out a document, there is nothing binding upon any bishop other than his goodwill and esteem of common endeavor. But in one of the specific circumstances in which canon law gives the bishops’ conference authority to petition for adaptations that then become particular law, the granting of a recognitio makes that particular adaptation the law for the whole conference, if I understand correctly.
Click to expand...
This is a very interesting discussion because I would normally agree with you. However, the rubrics of the liturgy were purposfully removed from canon law. Thus, I can not say for certain that the requirement for canonical acceptance can be equaited to liturgical acceptance because of this divorce.
 
40.png
mosher:
This is a very interesting discussion because I would normally agree with you. However, the rubrics of the liturgy were purposfully removed from canon law. Thus, I can not say for certain that the requirement for canonical acceptance can be equaited to liturgical acceptance because of this divorce.
Click to expand...
You may be right. We’re dealing in a pretty foggy area. We need a good canonist to settle this for us.

…Where’s Abp. Burke when you need him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top