Cardinal Mahoney's Statement on Redemptionis Sacramentum

  • Thread starter Thread starter transfinitum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

transfinitum

Guest
Cardinal Mahoney’s statement seems to boil down to a flat out rejection of the relevance of Redemptionis Sacramentum to the Los Angeles Archdiocese.

He states he will provide an “exception” to RS 106 (re: pouring the Precious Blood from a carafe into chalices after the consecration).

Question One: Can a diocesan ordinary grant an exception to a Vatican decree on liturgical practice?

Question Two: Is anyone at the Vatican prepared to enforce the decree, if the answer to #1 above should turn out to be “no”?

Cardinal Mahoney asserts that the use of Eucharistic Ministers will continue, evidently under the justification of “full and active participation” as called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Question Three: Can a diocesan ordinary contradict a Vatican decree on liturgical practice by appeal to an interpretation of the intent of a Council?

Question Four: Is anyone at the Vatican prepared to enforce the decree, should the answer to #3 above turn out to be “no”?

Thanks for any assistance.
 
40.png
transfinitum:
Cardinal Mahoney’s statement seems to boil down to a flat out rejection of the relevance of Redemptionis Sacramentum to the Los Angeles Archdiocese.

He states he will provide an “exception” to RS 106 (re: pouring the Precious Blood from a carafe into chalices after the consecration).

Question One: Can a diocesan ordinary grant an exception to a Vatican decree on liturgical practice?

Question Two: Is anyone at the Vatican prepared to enforce the decree, if the answer to #1 above should turn out to be “no”?

Cardinal Mahoney asserts that the use of Eucharistic Ministers will continue, evidently under the justification of “full and active participation” as called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Question Three: Can a diocesan ordinary contradict a Vatican decree on liturgical practice by appeal to an interpretation of the intent of a Council?

Question Four: Is anyone at the Vatican prepared to enforce the decree, should the answer to #3 above turn out to be “no”?

Thanks for any assistance.
Click to expand...
#1) Nope, but it happens all the time. The correct process is for them to request an indult from the Vatican as they did with respect to receiving communion in hand in the USA. Even when requests for indults are rejected (such as allowing the EMHCs to fraction the Body and Blood), some bishops still ignore the Vatican’s ruling.

#2) The Catholic Church is not the US Army or General Motors. Its structure and lines of authority are much different. While the Vatican condemns liturgical abuses, it sure hasn’t taken many practical steps to eliminate the practice.

#2a) The use of EMHCs was not forbidden under RS. However, “full and active participation” alone is no reason to use EMHCs.

#3) See #1.

#4) See #2.

When all is said and done the only things that will end liturgical abuse are prayer, bishops who are well formed and follow the Church, and a laity that does not accept liturgical abuse…
 
40.png
transfinitum:
Cardinal Mahoney’s statement seems to boil down to a flat out rejection of the relevance of Redemptionis Sacramentum to the Los Angeles Archdiocese.

He states he will provide an “exception” to RS 106 (re: pouring the Precious Blood from a carafe into chalices after the consecration).

Question One: Can a diocesan ordinary grant an exception to a Vatican decree on liturgical practice?
Click to expand...
There is a pending request for an indult on this issue. There is also a question from the American bishops about whether or not this *instruction *from the Congregation can override particular law. Most bishops are not implementing RS until these questions are answered.
40.png
transfinitum:
Question Two: Is anyone at the Vatican prepared to enforce the decree, if the answer to #1 above should turn out to be “no”?
Click to expand...
It’s not a “decree”, it’s an “instruction” and, because of that, there is some question of how it should be “enforced.”
40.png
transfinitum:
Cardinal Mahoney asserts that the use of Eucharistic Ministers will continue, evidently under the justification of “full and active participation” as called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Click to expand...
It’s “Mahony” – no “e”. RS does not prohibit the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The general distribution of both species at all Masses in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles requires the use of these ministers in order to avoid “unduly prolonging the Mass” (one of the requirements for their use).
40.png
transfinitum:
Question Three: Can a diocesan ordinary contradict a Vatican decree on liturgical practice by appeal to an interpretation of the intent of a Council?
Click to expand...
Not based upon an interpretion, but when the practice is contrary to particular law, either of the diocese of the national conference of bishops, he can. As I mentioned above, there is a request for an “authentic interpretation” of the instruction. In short, the USCCB has raised a dubium and we await the responsum from Rome.

Deacon Ed
 
Speaking of legalism!!! We have to figure out if there are any outs or if it applies in my diocese? Incredible. Reprobrare - means cease immeddiately before the force of custom can take place.
 
Deacon Ed,

It is my understanding the the USCCB raised a dubium regarding the fractioning of the Precious Blood and were told that RS is the correct interpretation rather than an earlier USCCB document on the Eucharist that had Vatican approval. Evidently they didn’t like the response to their dubium so they are asking again.

As a parent it sounds like “If Mom says no, then ask Dad”. 😃

Buffalo,

Excellent point. When you read the document it is clear that the intent is to override “force of custom” and common practice where it has arisen and to bring the litergy back into comformity with the GIRM.
 
Lots of luck folks. Too bad all our problems were this insignificant.
 
You said: Lots of luck folks. Too bad all our problems were this insignificant

I reply: Insignificant? Hardly. The issue is who has the authority to establish liturgical norms for the Church. It seems to me, as a simple layman, that Cardinal Mahony (thanks Deacon Ed) has introduced practices, including fractionation of the Precious Blood, and non-extraordinary eucharistic ministers.

It seems that the Vatican has reprobated these practices.

It seems that the Cardinal asserts that he has the power to override these reprobations.

To me this is a very big deal indeed.
 
kmktexas,

Yes, the bishops asked for an indult and it was refused. They have gone back with more information in order to clarify a question that Rome raised.

Buffalo,

The problem is that this is not an issue of “custom” but of particular law. If it were merely custom then the instruction overrides it. However, the issue arose because the USCCB had made this into law – albeit “particular law.” This is the reason for the dubium.

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
transfinitum:
You said: Lots of luck folks. Too bad all our problems were this insignificant

I reply: Insignificant? Hardly. The issue is who has the authority to establish liturgical norms for the Church. It seems to me, as a simple layman, that Cardinal Mahony (thanks Deacon Ed) has introduced practices, including fractionation of the Precious Blood, and non-extraordinary eucharistic ministers.

It seems that the Vatican has reprobated these practices.

It seems that the Cardinal asserts that he has the power to override these reprobations.

To me this is a very big deal indeed.
Click to expand...
I deserved that.I guess I am getting throughly fed up with all the wrangling in our parish. Sorry.
 
Bishops should always rememberthat the laity are watching. They will be about half as obedient to the Bishops as the Bishops are to Rome.
 
However, the issue arose because the USCCB had made this into law – albeit “particular law.” This is the reason for the dubium.
Click to expand...
Had the USCCB been given the faculties to make this into law?

What I find telling is the response from Bishop Mahony as compared to the response of Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs. We immediately ceased pouring the precious blood in accordance with the clear intent of the lawgiver. No dubium can possibly be present. Seems more like dissent rather than dubium.

The instruction placed in the AAS has the force of law, doesn’t it? Was the “particluar law” by the USCCB approved of by the Roman Pontiff?
 
"All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned."

What is the doubt? Bishop Mahony seems to be acting a bit like my quibbling teenagers on this one.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Had the USCCB been given the faculties to make this into law?

What I find telling is the response from Bishop Mahony as compared to the response of Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs. We immediately ceased pouring the precious blood in accordance with the clear intent of the lawgiver. No dubium can possibly be present. Seems more like dissent rather than dubium.

The instruction placed in the AAS has the force of law, doesn’t it? Was the “particluar law” by the USCCB approved of by the Roman Pontiff?
Click to expand...
The answer to your first question is, yes, the USCCB had the faculties to do that, and did. A *dubium *may be present any time there is an apparent conflict, or there needs to be a clarification. Bishop Sheridan has decided, as is his right as the chief liturgist in his diocese, to follow the instruction. Cardinal Mahony and a large number of the bishops in the United States have asked for clarification. I should state right up front that I am not in Cardinal Mahony’s diocese but, rather, in a neighboring diocese.

Particular law does not, in general, need to be “approved by Rome.” That’s why it’s “particular law” and not canon law.

Deacon Ed
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
"All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned."

What is the doubt? Bishop Mahony seems to be acting a bit like my quibbling teenagers on this one.
Click to expand...

It’s “Cardinal Mahony” – and he’s not quibbling any more than the other bishops who have asked for a clarification. That is their right. You know, due process and all that.

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
Lots of luck folks. Too bad all our problems were this insignificant.
Click to expand...
If you lived in Los Angeles like some of us poor folks, you wouldn’t think it was so insignificant. You should see the kind of stuff that goes on here. The sorts of things mentioned in this post are just the tip of the iceberg and I think it is these sorts of “exceptions” that constitute the thin edge of the wedge. And sadly, there is no recourse in our Archdiocese for liturgical abuse because our very own Cardinal is the ringleader for liturgical abusers.

It is very disheartening and the only real option is to keep searching for a parish that treats the Mass reverently. I’m fortunate to have found, but it did take some doing.
 
deacon,

Here’s an idea. Why not just obey the Instruction? It is very clear. Not dubious at all. I am far more dubious about His Eminence’s prevarications. It seems to be a “let’s raise questions until we get the answer we want or Rome forgets the original issue”. The whole point of RS was to resolve these things. May His Eminence will consider granting due process in other areas of concern in his diocese.
 
Jenstall,

If
you lived in Los Angeles like some of us poor folks, you wouldn’t think it was so insignificant. You should see the kind of stuff that goes on here. The sorts of things mentioned in this post are just the tip of the iceberg and I think it is these sorts of “exceptions” that constitute the thin edge of the wedge. And sadly, there is no recourse in our Archdiocese for liturgical abuse because our very own Cardinal is the ringleader for liturgical abusers.
Click to expand...
I sympathize with you. I was in the diocese on vacation 2 years ago and amazed.

When I saw the article that is referenced in the original post, it carried the subtitle “Mahony find no Liturgical Abuse in LA”. This says alot.

In my own diocese, our Bishop said that the only area that was not in compliace with RS was the fractioning. Nevertheless, he said it would take at least 6 months to properly prepare to implement the change. :confused:
 
In my own diocese, our Bishop said that the only area that was not in compliace with RS was the fractioning. Nevertheless, he said it would take at least 6 months to properly prepare to implement the change. :confused:

No real suprise there. Change takes lots of time.
 
Deacon Ed, I really appreciate your illuminating this issue. Too often we get whining from one side or another on some issue, with responses in kind. In this case, you’ve stepped clear of the mire by not stating your own opinion, but in service to members here have provided the legal background so we can see the process that’s really going on. As a result, all of us will be better able to comprehend and interpret the response when it comes, and understand other issues in the future. Keep up the good work.
 
Bishop Sheridan has decided, as is his right as the chief liturgist in his diocese, to follow the instruction.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I disagree. More accurately, he had NO RIGHT to not follow the instruction of Roman Pontiff whose responsibility it is that liturgical regulations are everywhere faithfully observed.

Furthermore, The fathers of the Second Vatican Council clearly stated that “…no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, n. 230]

It is “the prerogative of the Apostolic See to regulate the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to publish liturgical books and review their vernacular translations, and to be watchful that liturgical regulations are everywhere faithfully observed” [Canon 838.2].

And “It pertains to Episcopal Conferences to prepare translations of liturgical books, with appropriate adaptations as allowed by the books themselves and, with the prior review of the Holy See, to publish these translations [Canon 838.3].”

In what way was the “particular law” that you speak of promulgated? Do you have a reference? Did it have prior approval of the Holy See? “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” (RS 28).

The only thing I’ve been able to find as a possible source of “particular law” is the 1997 “Gather Faithfully Together”, issued by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It describes the “plate of bread, the cup, the large flagon of wine” and comments, “Nothing distracts from the power of bread and wine in their simple vessels”. (GFT 63). "As the presider raises a large piece of the consecrated bread to break it, the cantor begins the litany ‘Lamb of God/Cordero de Dios’ that will carry us until the bread is all broken, the consecrated wine all poured into the communion cups, ‘God’s holy gifts for God’s holy people’ "(GFT 69). Does the GFT have a greater force of law than Redemptionis Sacramentum?

*Redmptionis Sacramentum *states: “within this Instruction some elements of liturgical norms that have been previously expounded or laid down and even today remain in force… The norms contained in the present Instruction are to be understood as pertaining to liturgical matters in the Roman Rite, and, mutatis mutandis, in the other Rites of the Latin Church that are duly acknowledged by law.”

In other words, this is not new liturgical norms, but norms that were already in force but were not being implemented properly. This WAS the *Respondsum ad dubium *to any lingering dubium, yet it seems wholly astonishing that any Bishop or Cardinal would think that they could disregard it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top