Enforcing the Redemptionis Sacramentum

[Brendan]

Yes I know! By golly you have read the GIRM, RS and a handful of other documents and you feel you KNOW EXACTLY what the Church directs and now you’re going after whomever you can!

Well, take a look at R.S. It directs EVERY Catholic to be vigilant in regards the abuses it notes ( and yes, it specifically outlines what abuses are to be considered grave.)

So the Church, not only expects it’s documents to be interpreted by the laity, it asks asking ALL Catholics to lodge complaints if necessary.

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

And, even if there was any doubt about the Waterford chalice, the Vatican itself has issued further instructions on that, in response to questions from both the clegy and laity alike. So a bishop doesn’t need to worry about coming up with a ‘interpretation’, it has already been done for him. All that remains for him is to excercise the Virtue of Obedience.

We do desire our bishops to be virtuous? Don’t we?

 

[japhy]

Hold on just one moment. There are actual liturgical abuses and there are irregularities that are in no way “abuses” and that distinction needs to be made.

If I was to witness graviora delicta or another grave matter during the Mass or at any time concerning the sacraments I would take action. As you point out we are directed to do that. But most things labeled as “abuses” here are neither graviora delicta nor another grave matter.

Here’s what I witnessed yesterday at the First Communion of my niece and God-daughter:

• the complete omission of the 2nd reading (on a SUNDAY)
• the complete omission of the Creed
• a hybrid Eucharistic Prayer (EP III for most except the Institution Narrative)
• “the Lord is with you” and other inclusive language changes (changing “He” to “God”, changing “Father” to “Provider”, etc.)
• the complete omission of the ‘embolism’ between the “Our Father” and the “For the kingdom…”
• a hand-gesture version of the “Our Father”
• the complete omission of the “prayer for peace” after the “For the kingdom…”
• EMHCs coming up the altar and receiving the Host at the same time as the priest (so they’re all standing there with the Host in their hands, waiting…)
• the Precious Blood consecrated in a flagon and poured into chalices at the fraction
• the Post-communion prayer replaced by a “celtic prayer” (done by the priest and First Communicants, complete with hand motions, and repeated three )

Did I go to this Mass hoping or expecting to find these things? No. I’d never been to a Mass there before; I went because it was the First Communion for my niece and God-daughter. I noticed them because I’ve read the Church’s documents on the liturgy, and I’m no longer ignorant about such things. I’m deeply concerned that that is the sort of Mass she attends with her family on a regular basis. What are they teaching her there? If the law of prayer informs the law of belief, what is she growing up believing to be the Catholic faith?!

That liturgy was such a concoction.

 

[Brendan]

Hold on just one moment. There are actual liturgical abuses and there are irregularities that are in no way “abuses” and that distinction needs to be made.

BTW, R.S. outlines what it considers to be grave abuses, by paragraph number

Grave Matters

[173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168.

BTW, the prohibition against glass chalices is listed about, it is para 117.

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.

So yes, using that Waterford ‘chalice’ IS a grave abuse, the Vatican specifically mentions it as being such.

 

[Phemie]

Here’s what I witnessed yesterday at the First Communion of my niece and God-daughter:

Hey, didn’t know you had been visiting this weekend!

• an illicit version of the Gloria
• the complete omission of the 2nd reading (on a SUNDAY) Yes, here too – and the first reading was divided and read by 2 children, the second of whom we never heard. And for some reason that I couldn’t fathom, they opted to do the readings, not from the Ambo, but from a lectern on the other side of the Church - from scraps of paper.
• the complete omission of the Creed Ditto
• a hybrid Eucharistic Prayer (EP III for most except the Institution Narrative)
• “the Lord is with you” and other inclusive language changes (changing “He” to “God”, changing “Father” to “Provider”, etc.)
• the complete omission of the ‘embolism’ between the “Our Father” and the “For the kingdom…”
• a hand-gesture version of the “Our Father”
• the complete omission of the “prayer for peace” after the “For the kingdom…”
• EMHCs coming up the altar and receiving the Host at the same time as the priest (so they’re all standing there with the Host in their hands, waiting…) Ditto
• the Precious Blood consecrated in a flagon and poured into chalices at the fraction
• the Post-communion prayer replaced by a “celtic prayer” (done by the priest and First Communicants, complete with hand motions, and repeated three )
• Let me add:
• Every child involved in the Offertory procession to drop a pin in Fr.'s hands. Said pin was blessed after Communion and presented back to the child to resounding applause.
• No genuflections, at all
• Posing at communion time so mom & dad could take a picture of their little darlin’ receiving Communion

Did I go to this Mass hoping or expecting to find these things? No. I’d never been to a Mass there before; I went because it was the First Communion for my niece and God-daughter. I noticed them because I’ve read the Church’s documents on the liturgy, and I’m no longer ignorant about such things. I’m deeply concerned that that is the sort of Mass she attends with her family on a regular basis. What are they teaching her there? If the law of prayer informs the law of belief, what is she growing up believing to be the Catholic faith?!

That liturgy was such a concoction.

 

[japhy]

Phemie - yikes! Sorry to hear that.

I forgot to mention that the Responsorial Psalm was replaced with “I say yes, my Lord”. We also had a peculiar paraphrase of the Gloria. The priest didn’t genuflect, although he did get down on his knees during his duet with the children after Holy Communion – which he said was not to be cute. (That duet was from 1973. Aren’t there any more recent sappy duets they could have chosen?)

 

[benedictgal]

Phemie - yikes! Sorry to hear that.

I forgot to mention that the Responsorial Psalm was replaced with “I say yes, my Lord”. We also had a peculiar paraphrase of the Gloria. The priest didn’t genuflect, although he did get down on his knees during his duet with the children after Holy Communion – which he said was not to be cute. (That duet was from 1973. Aren’t there any more recent sappy duets they could have chosen?)

You might want to ask the child’s parents if this kind of stuff is commonplace on Sundays. My dad’s previous pastor, a priest with an STD in Liturgy, engaged in some pretty bizarre practices during “children’s” Masses to the point of having the children sing some strange song, “O God, We are Your Children” in lieu of the Penitential Rite, and then, he would go up and down the aisle with a portable mike and have some unsuspecting child sing along. Then, instead of the psalm, he would have the kids sing “Make a Joyful Noise to the Lord”, complete with clapping and hand signs.

The parents thought it was cute and that it was especially darling when the children read, even to the point of snapping away with the cameras. It seems as though Holy Week and sacramental liturgies (ie: FHC, Confirmations and Weddings) seem like hotbeds for both abuse and experimentation.

 

[boatbearer]

Here’s what I witnessed yesterday at the First Communion of my niece and God-daughter:

• the complete omission of the 2nd reading (on a SUNDAY)
• the complete omission of the Creed
• a hybrid Eucharistic Prayer (EP III for most except the Institution Narrative)
• “the Lord is with you” and other inclusive language changes (changing “He” to “God”, changing “Father” to “Provider”, etc.)
• the complete omission of the ‘embolism’ between the “Our Father” and the “For the kingdom…”
• a hand-gesture version of the “Our Father”
• the complete omission of the “prayer for peace” after the “For the kingdom…”
• EMHCs coming up the altar and receiving the Host at the same time as the priest (so they’re all standing there with the Host in their hands, waiting…)
• the Precious Blood consecrated in a flagon and poured into chalices at the fraction
• the Post-communion prayer replaced by a “celtic prayer” (done by the priest and First Communicants, complete with hand motions, and repeated three )

Did I go to this Mass hoping or expecting to find these things? No. I’d never been to a Mass there before; I went because it was the First Communion for my niece and God-daughter. I noticed them because I’ve read the Church’s documents on the liturgy, and I’m no longer ignorant about such things. I’m deeply concerned that that is the sort of Mass she attends with her family on a regular basis. What are they teaching her there? If the law of prayer informs the law of belief, what is she growing up believing to be the Catholic faith?!

That liturgy was such a concoction.

I have attended Masses in many, many, many parishes – mostly here in California and I have only been subjected to one of them which I have highlighted on your list. Maybe the Mass really is being abused at a far higher level outside of California? In any event I really cannot talk about your experience as I was not there except for one point.

With regard to that one abuse (which I find VERY lamentable.) The local cardinal wrote the following for his archdiocesan newspaper:
Roger Cardinal Mahony;09/10/2004 Tidings:

…Some have inquired about the continued use of specially designed carafes in which the wine is presented at the Preparation of the Gifts, placed upon the altar, consecrated during the Eucharistic Prayer, and then distributed into smaller chalices for Holy Communion. Our overwhelming experience with this practice over the years has been most positive.

Because our practice has become an Archdiocesan custom of over seven years, with both the Catholic faithful and the ministers accustomed to this practice, I am willing to grant exceptions to no. 106 of Redemptionis Sacramentum for legitimate reasons, such as the following: where the altar table is too small to accommodate many chalices, thus creating a greater danger for spillage; and where the number of chalices is so large that they would visibly detract from the important sign of One Bread and One Cup, as well as increase the danger of tipping over the chalices.

In all cases, the carafes must be artistically designed for the specific purpose of holding the Precious Blood, and all ministers must be fully trained and have demonstrated their ability to pour the Precious Blood without danger…"

the-tidings.com/2004/0910/liturgy.htm

Now I know such comments make some people burn with passionate hatred but let’s think about them for a moment.

First the cardinal himself made the statement. I am absolutely certain he (or a staffer) did the homework to ENSURE the Holy See would not reverse what he has openly and publicly allowed. It’s been six years and the Holy See has not rescinded this special permission. So given the importance of this matter you have to conclude that either the cardinal does have the authority to dispense with #106 of RS or that the Holy See is failing to enforce this paragraph of RS.

Given that this is such a big deal (effects 5M Catholics) and such a hotbed issue I don’t think the Holy See is being apathetic on the matter. I just think the cardinal does indeed have the authority to dispense with #106 of RS no matter how misguided it might be for him to do so. Read that last line again.

I’m aware this won’t make sense to the liturgical technicians out there with their dog eared copies of the GIRM and RS living in their black and white worlds. Their confusion and anger is not really a product not of the cardinal’s unfortunate action on this matter. It’s a product of them not understanding the great authority of individual bishops, even when it’s used in ways most of us would find to be very unfortunate.

In sum I will accept the printed actions of the Cardinal and the subsequent lack of action by the Holy See on this matter over the personal opinions of individual laypersons.

There are many things like the aforementioned in the Church. Those liturgical technicians who think in fundamentalist/black-white ways fueled by their own personal interpretations of Church documents are setting themselves up for confusion, disappointment and frustration…

 

[MarkThompson]

Given that this is such a big deal (effects 5M Catholics) and such a hotbed issue I don’t think the Holy See is being apathetic on the matter. I just think the cardinal does indeed have the authority to dispense with #106 of RS no matter how misguided it might be for him to do so. Read that last line again.

What this actually shows is the His Eminence knows he has the power to do this. That’s quite different from having the authority.

 

[boatbearer]

What this actually shows is the His Eminence knows he has the power to do this. That’s quite different from having the authority.

How do you know? Have you ever discussed this matter with the Cardinal or his staff? People make comments like yours and they always seem to be based on nothing more than personal interpretations of Church documents.

Authority begets power. The Cardinal’s printed public permission and the Holy See’s lack of action on this matter makes me conclude he has the authority to give the permission.

 

[MarkThompson]

How do you know? Have you ever discussed this matter with the Cardinal or his staff? People make comments like yours and they always seem to be based on nothing more than personal interpretations of Church documents.

Authority begets power. The Cardinal’s printed public permission and the Holy See’s lack of action on this matter makes me conclude he has the authority to give the permission.

Authority begets legitimate power; however, power can be exercised in the absence of authority, or even contrary to it. I’m not saying that this was an illegitimate power grab on the Cardinal’s part; I am saying that your claims do not amount to a logical argument. Your argument seems to be:

1. Cardinal Mahony did this brazenly;
2. A cardinal would never act so brazenly if he didn’t have the legitimate authority to do what he’s doing;
   Ergo, Cardinal Mahony had the legitimate authority to do this.
   Proposition (2) is non-obvious, and has not been established by anything you’ve yet written.

 

[japhy]

First the cardinal himself made the statement. I am absolutely certain he (or a staffer) did the homework to ENSURE the Holy See would not reverse what he has openly and publicly allowed. It’s been six years and the Holy See has not rescinded this special permission. So given the importance of this matter you have to conclude that either the cardinal does have the authority to dispense with #106 of RS or that the Holy See is failing to enforce this paragraph of RS.

I think it’s more likely that the Holy See is failing to enforce its own prescriptions (which has happened in the past, such as with Communion in the hand and the over-use of Communion from the Chalice). I do not think it is within the authority of the Archbishop (Cardinal or not) to dispense from RS 106:
However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.

I just think the cardinal does indeed have the authority to dispense with #106 of RS no matter how misguided it might be for him to do so. Read that last line again.

I’m concerned that his solution is not to avoid “the detriment of so great a mystery” at all costs (that is, by completely avoiding the pouring of the Blood of Christ, but to permit a seven-year custom (well short of Canon Law’s mark of custom) which includes the use of so many chalices that altars are too small to hold them, among other things. I suppose that’s his “pastoral” judgment of the matter.

I’m aware this won’t make sense to the liturgical technicians out there with their dog eared copies of the GIRM and RS living in their black and white worlds.

Please leave ad hominem comments out of this discussion. It’ll be better for all of us.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

First off boatbearer, I don’t just dog ear the rubrics that I have printed, I also high light stuff in them! LOL

But I will say that lack of action by the Holy See does not mean that it is allowed. Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church is not a business. Neither the Pope nor his Congregations see every directive or pastoral letter that a Bishop puts out. For the most part, they are informed by the laity and clergy in a given diocese when they feel that something is wrong.

 

[roadsend]

… The Cardinal’s printed public permission and the Holy See’s lack of action on this matter makes me conclude he has the authority to give the permission.

Is this the same Cardinal whose replacement has already been named several months before he reaches retirement age?

 

[boatbearer]

Authority begets legitimate power; however, power can be exercised in the absence of authority, or even contrary to it. I’m not saying that this was an illegitimate power grab on the Cardinal’s part; I am saying that your claims do not amount to a logical argument. Your argument seems to be:

1. Cardinal Mahony did this brazenly;
2. A cardinal would never act so brazenly if he didn’t have the legitimate authority to do what he’s doing;
   Ergo, Cardinal Mahony had the legitimate authority to do this.
   Proposition (2) is non-obvious, and has not been established by anything you’ve yet written.

You simply don’t know if this is within the Cardinal’s authority or not. Go around in as many circles as you want but you don’t know – nor do I for that matter.

HOWEVER given the fact he has formally made the declaration AND the Holy See has taken no action in six years suggests that he does have the authority.

 

[boatbearer]

I think it’s more likely that the Holy See is failing to enforce its own prescriptions (which has happened in the past, such as with Communion in the hand and the over-use of Communion from the Chalice). I do not think it is within the authority of the Archbishop (Cardinal or not) to dispense from RS 106:
However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.

I’m concerned that his solution is not to avoid “the detriment of so great a mystery” at all costs (that is, by completely avoiding the pouring of the Blood of Christ, but to permit a seven-year custom (well short of Canon Law’s mark of custom) which includes the use of so many chalices that altars are too small to hold them, among other things. I suppose that’s his “pastoral” judgment of the matter.

Please leave ad hominem comments out of this discussion. It’ll be better for all of us.

You’re entitled to your own opinion about the Holy See. I just disagree with it is all.

But you are missing he point when you quote RS 106. No one is questioning that RS 106 is saying. What I am suggesting is that the cardinal probably has the authority to dispense with it in toto. Further I am absolutely certain the cardinal aided by his staff has a better understanding then we do about whether or not he has that authority. Further because this is such a hot button item, I believe the Holy See would have quietly told him to back-off on this matter if he lacked said authority.

I didn’t use an ad hominem argument. Please don’t suggest I did.

 

[benedictgal]

You simply don’t know if this is within the Cardinal’s authority or not. Go around in as many circles as you want but you don’t know – nor do I for that matter.

HOWEVER given the fact he has formally made the declaration AND the Holy See has taken no action in six years suggests that he does have the authority.

However, boatbearer, we do know what is within the scope of a Metroplitan’s (and Ordinary’s) scope of authority. It is listed in the GIRM. Redemptionis Sacramentum, regardless of whether or not you choose to disregard it, is a universal document. It is an authoritative document issued by the Holy See. Inasmuch as perhaps there are those who may think that they are above the authoritative documents, from laity on up, we are bound by obedience to adhere to what the Holy See has dictated. As I have stated in this and other threads, obedience is a two-way street. Just as we are obliged to obey our bishops in faith and morals, they, too, have taken a vow of obedience to the Holy Father. In addition, disagreement does not equate to disobedience and disrespect. If the faithful have legitimate grounds to disagree with a particular action taken by their Ordinary or Metropolitan, they have the right, under RS, to address this situation. Redemptionis Sacramentum gives the faithful that right.

For all we know, perhaps the faithful have now brought this to the attention of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Furthermore, it may be that the new Co-Adjutor Archbishop will address the matter and correct the problem. While in San Antonio, he did make a lot of strides to improve the liturgical life of his Metropolitan See.

Furthermore, if something is specifically stated in Redemptionis Sacramentum, it should not be so easily disregarded. The only one who has supreme and universal authority is the Holy Father. Such universal and supreme jurisdiction belongs solely to him.

Instead of making baseless arguments, it would perhaps prove helpful if you were to actually read the document rather than make disparaging comments in this and other threads about those of us who actually care about preserving the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Upon reading the authoritative documents of the Holy See, you may actually find them educational and edifying.

 

[boatbearer]

Is this the same Cardinal whose replacement has already been named several months before he reaches retirement age?

Yep, the same cardinal that many months before that petitioned the Holy See to appoint a co-coadjutor so he had time to bring his replacement up to speed on an archdiocese of nearly 5M members. " "

 

[boatbearer]

…But I will say that lack of action by the Holy See does not mean that it is allowed. Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church is not a business. Neither the Pope nor his Congregations see every directive or pastoral letter that a Bishop puts out. For the most part, they are informed by the laity and clergy in a given diocese when they feel that something is wrong.

That’s all axiomatic except for you last sentence. I’m not sure if your last sentence is accurate or not. What I do know with certainty is the Cardinal and his staff has a better understanding if he has the authority to dispense with RS 106 then you or I do. I also suspect the Holy See would have backed him off this hot button item if he lacked the authority to do what he did.

 

[benedictgal]

You’re entitled to your own opinion about the Holy See. I just disagree with it is all.

But you are missing he point when you quote RS 106. No one is questioning that RS 106 is saying. What I am suggesting is that the cardinal probably has the authority to dispense with it in toto. Further I am absolutely certain the cardinal aided by his staff has a better understanding then we do about whether or not he has that authority. Further because this is such a hot button item, I believe the Holy See would have quietly told him to back-off on this matter if he lacked said authority.

I didn’t use an ad hominem argument. Please don’t suggest I did.

With all due respect, you have been using ad hominem arguments in this and other threads.

As I stated in my previous posts, a Metropolitan, even if he is a Cardinal, does not have the right to dispense with the authoritative documents of the Holy See. In fact, all of the documents charge the Ordinaries (and the Metropolitans) to safeguard the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You have already been shown what a bishop can and cannot do, per the GIRM. You have been shown this in about two threads and yet you persist in holding an opinion which, as I see it, runs constrary to to the GIRM.

Neither an Ordinary nor a Metropolitan has complete carte blanche over the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He is charged with upholding current liturgical law and ensuring that the parishes in his jurisdiction follow the authoritative documents of the Holy See. In the final analysis, what we must do is read and heed the authoritative documents of the Holy See.

 

[Phemie]

That’s all axiomatic except for you last sentence. I’m not sure if your last sentence is accurate or not. What I do know with certainty is the Cardinal and his staff has a better understanding if he has the authority to dispense with RS 106 then you or I do. I also suspect the Holy See would have backed him off this hot button item if he lacked the authority to do what he did.

If he stopped Consecration in the flagon and pouring of the Precious Blood that would actually make his book & video on the Mass obsolete. Instead, he continues to allow this in his archdiocese, his book & video keep selling and promoting abuse. [edited]