Custom vs GIRM, seating of priest

[Corki]

Father,

Does the fact that the OP describes a university parish have any bearing on the claim of a “custom”? I would think that since it probably has a fairly high turnover and few long-term parishioners, a claim of “custom” would be rather weak anyway. The idea, as I understand it, of allowing customs to remain is to help the parishioners. An example that is often given is for parishes where most of the parishioners are from one ethnic or immigrant group.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father,

Does the fact that the OP describes a university parish have any bearing on the claim of a “custom”? I would think that since it probably has a fairly high turnover and few long-term parishioners, a claim of “custom” would be rather weak anyway. The idea, as I understand it, of allowing customs to remain is to help the parishioners. An example that is often given is for parishes where most of the parishioners are from one ethnic or immigrant group.

Well, again “custom” usually isn’t intended to refer to liturgical laws in the first place. Liturgical law has its own “set of rules” if you will. Yes, sometimes “custom” might be invoked, but the real issue is that “custom” just doesn’t mean “custom in the sense of a cultural practice.” It’s more like the secular term “common law.” That word refers more to how laws are interpreted and applied than it does to the liturgical/cultural practices of a given group of people. That’s what causes the confusion–the fact that in our everyday English vocabulary custom means one thing, but in canon law it means something different. Perhaps if we think of it more in terms of “legal precedent” or “common law” we will get a better understanding of what canon 26 actually means.

Yes, there might be some legal precedent for allowing certain cultural traditions to continue even though they aren’t strictly in accord with liturgical laws, and sometimes c. 26 might be invoked to justify (and rightly so) continuing these. However, if these practices are truly worth keeping, they’re usually somehow permitted through the liturgical law. For example, certain wedding traditions belonging to a given culture might be permitted within the rite of marriage–but here the liturgical law for marriage makes provision for these. Most (certainly not all) cultural traditions have to do with practices outside of the Mass itself, rather than being traditional “variations” on the Mass. A novena to a certain saint might be very important to a given ethnicity. The Church encourages these practices, but that’s not really a matter of saying that they are permitted to vary from the law because there is no “law” in the first place.

We might say that it’s “a custom” to have a Novena to St. Joseph on the days leading to his feast, but that’s not using the word in the same way that c26 uses the word. On the other hand, if the bishops of diocese have been dispensing parishioners from the requirement to abstain from meat if St Joseph day falls on a Friday in Lent, and this has been happening continuously for 150 years, then it might be said to be “custom.” There’s a difference between “a custom” and “legal custom.” Does that explain the difference any better?

 

[diggerdomer]

Well, again “custom” usually isn’t intended to refer to liturgical laws in the first place.

Where in Canon Law does it state that “custom” – in the canonical sense and usage – usually is not intended to refer to liturgical law? I am not aware of anything in Canon Law that restricts the canonical usage of “custom” to only non-liturgical law.

thanks.

 

[FrDavid96]

Where in Canon Law does it state that “custom” – in the canonical sense and usage – usually is not intended to refer to liturgical law? I am not aware of anything in Canon Law that restricts the canonical usage of “custom” to only non-liturgical law.

thanks.

The reason is that liturgical practice has it’s own set of laws. Canon law isn’t intended to deal with liturgical matters (for the most part) That’s why the Church has liturgical laws, to deal with specific liturgical matters. And as I have said repeatedly, sometimes the canonical principle of custom might apply to liturgical matters.

You’re missing the point entirely. Again, what I’ve been trying to say here is that “custom” does not mean “a custom” and that’s where many people get confused. Just because someone says “we have *a custom *here of placing the presiders chair in the midst of the assembly” does not mean that one may invoke c. 26 and say “look here, our custom is protected.” Just because it’s the same word does not mean that the word has the same meaning in those 2 different contexts.

 

[diggerdomer]

You’re missing the point entirely. Again, what I’ve been trying to say here is that “custom” does not mean “a custom” and that’s where many people get confused. .

No, I’m not.

You have repeatedly “clarified” that point and each time I have acknowledged that yes, I understand what you’re saying and always have.

I am not confused on the ways “custom” might be used. You are not “listening” to my comments objectively. No problem, I’m not worried about it.

I have no idea what you mean by saying Canon law is not intended to deal with liturgical matters, for the most part. On one hand, yes, of course because Canon Law affects ALL aspects of the Church life, including Liturgical law. It does not specify ALL liturgical law because it specifically states that MOST liturgical law is not in the Code itself but is rather left to the liturgical books. This does not in any way mean Canon Law does not deal with liturgical law.