Entitled to a proper Mass--what does this mean?

[Cat]

I’m so sorry that I cannot find the quote. Many times on this forum, I have seen a quote from a Catholic document that says something like, “The faithful are entitled to a proper Mass.”

If someone can provide the exact quote and reference, I would be very grateful.

What does this quote mean?

I’ve seen people use this quote to justify seeking an “abuse-free” Mass. Is that what it means?

Could it mean merely a “licit and valid” Mass, even if there are abuses?

What is the context of the quote?

I don’t want to be “tricky” or have hidden motives or try to trap people, so I will explain right up front where I’m coming from with this topic. I am beginning to suspect that people use this quote out of context to justify being hyper-critical and nit-picky about the Holy Mass.

I think that the quote does not mean a “perfect” Mass, but merely a “Mass” that gives Christians the opportunity to receive the Lord in Word and Eucharist.

I would really appreciate some insight into this quote and the implications for Catholics.

Thank you.

 

[Phemie]

I don’t know about anyone else and I can’t give you a quote but if I speak of a proper Mass, I speak of one where the priest says the black (with no additions, subtractions or changes) and does the red.

 

[adrift]

They are usually referring to the document Redemptionis Sacramentum

it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engen]der divisions and factions in the Church.32

 

[quiet52]

The Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, addresses the rights of the faithful to a properly-celebrated Mass several times.

Here are a few sections.

[18.] Christ’s faithful have the right that ecclesiastical authority should fully and efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy lest it should ever seem to be “anyone’s private property, whether of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated”

[22.] The Bishop governs the particular Church entrusted to him, and it is his task to regulate, to direct, to encourage, and sometimes also to reprove; this is a sacred task that he has received through episcopal Ordination, which he fulfills in order to build up his flock in truth and holiness. He should elucidate the inherent meaning of the rites and the liturgical texts, and nourish the spirit of the Liturgy in the Priests, Deacons and lay faithful so that they are all led to the active and fruitful celebration of the Eucharist, and in like manner he should take care to ensure that the whole body of the Church is able to grow in the same understanding, in the unity of charity, in the diocese, in the nation and in the world.

[24.] It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints
[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. 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.

Here is the link to the entire document:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

 

[yinekka]

A proper Mass is one which is in accord with the Rubrics. This Mass, for Latin Rite Catholics, could be either the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form.

Say the black do the red.

 

[AJV]

And here was me thinking this was going to be a thread on saints getting Proper texts for Mass (as opposed to from the Common)… :doh2:

 

[James0235]

I’m so sorry that I cannot find the quote. Many times on this forum, I have seen a quote from a Catholic document that says something like, “The faithful are entitled to a proper Mass.”

If someone can provide the exact quote and reference, I would be very grateful.

What does this quote mean?

I’ve seen people use this quote to justify seeking an “abuse-free” Mass. Is that what it means?

Could it mean merely a “licit and valid” Mass, even if there are abuses?

What is the context of the quote?

I don’t want to be “tricky” or have hidden motives or try to trap people, so I will explain right up front where I’m coming from with this topic. I am beginning to suspect that people use this quote out of context to justify being hyper-critical and nit-picky about the Holy Mass.

I think that the quote does not mean a “perfect” Mass, but merely a “Mass” that gives Christians the opportunity to receive the Lord in Word and Eucharist.

I would really appreciate some insight into this quote and the implications for Catholics.

Thank you.

When someone says that “the faithful are entitled to a proper Mass” I believe that they typically mean a Liturgical abuse free Mass - which means a licit Mass. Implied in this is the fact that the Mass must be valid because an invalid Mass is not even really a Mass at all.

A lot of people seem to confuse invalid and illicit.
There is not much that can make a Mass invalid. As long as the priest uses the words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” and actually intends to consecrate the bread and the wine then the Mass will be valid.

For a Mass to be licit it not only has to be valid - thus making it a Mass - but it also has to be said according to the rubrics.

Many people -especially here on CAF- seem to think that as long as the Mass is valid and the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ that nothing else really matters. Liberals and “liturgists” use this idea to justify just about and Liturgical abuse you can conceive of - and many more you probably can’t conceive of.

Thank God the Church does not hold this view. It is the position of the Catholic Church that we do not just have a right to valid Mass. We have a right to a licit Mass as well.

As adrift has already quoted:
On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.
**(Redemptionis Sacramentum 12)

**
It doesn’t get much clearer than that. But even after that the Church hammers home the necessity of abuse free Masses as shown in the quotes from Redemptionis Sacramentum already provided above by quiet52.

Given that the Church says that we have a right to a licit Mass and given that the Eucharist is the source and the summit of out faith I think there are probably very few faithful Catholics who would disagree that the abuse of the Mass is a grave sin.

And since grave matter, full knowledge, and full intent add up to mortal sin it is quite likely that priests who routinely abuse the Mass are in a state of mortal sin. Grave matter is already present. Full knowledge is likely as the rubrics for the Mass - the GIRM is such a tiny book that priests are required to be familiar with anyway. And that same GIRM reminds each priest that “he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.” (GIRM 24)

And full intent is there unless they are ordered by a bishop to commit an abuse - an order they can never be required to obey as bishops do not possess that authority.

That is not to say that every mistake in the Mass is a sin. Priests are human and therefore are prone to make mistakes - especially as they age.

I don’t believe that it is enough to just understand that we have a right to a licit Mass. I think it is important to understand why we have that right.

For abuses “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith and doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament”.
(Redemptionis Sacramentum 6)

For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine, so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.
(Redemptionis Sacramentum 10)

This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
(Pope Benedict’s Explanatory Letter to Bishops on Summorum Pontificum)

“Creative” Masses actually distort the Catholic faith. That is why the Church gives us the right to a licit Mass - because it is in Mass that the majority of Catholics learn the Catholic faith. Attendance at an abuse-filled Mass means that you are not receiving the Catholic faith - you are receiving an Obscured (RS 6) and distorted (Explanatory letter on SP) version of it.

So, whenever someone here on CAF tells you that abuses are no big deal do not listen to them. The priest who is intentionally abusing the Mass is doing an evil thing. And the person who is defending the abuse is cooperating in that evil act by defending it (CCC 1868). Desiring to end these abuses and workings towards ending them can never be considered to be “hyper-critical” or “nit-picky”. The problem is not with the person complaining about the abuse. The problem is with the priests knowingly committing the abuse and the people who defend them.

Save the Liturgy, Save the World!

James

 

[MusicMan]

It means that the Mass is said according to the Church’s interpretation of the rubrics. However, it always seems that many of the learned lay Faithful seem to think it means Mass according to their interpretation of the Church’s interepretation of the rubrics.

 

[Cat]

It means that the Mass is said according to the Church’s interpretation of the rubrics. However, it always seems that many of the learned lay Faithful seem to think it means Mass according to their interpretation of the Church’s interepretation of the rubrics.

Yes, it seems to me that there is a lot more freedom in the “rubrics” than a lot of people think. It seems to me that they are guidelines rather than strict rules.

I play piano in various parishes, and I have been present when the liturgist and the priest discuss the appropriateness of something for Mass. They refer to certain documents (I assume the GIRM, etc.), and make their decisions based on those documents.

It seems that there are different options given for Mass, and Father is not doing anything wrong or “abusive” to vary the Mass as long as he sticks with the guidelines in the rubrics.

And it seems to me that as a lay person, I should submit to Father and trust that he and the person who is appointed as the liturgist are correctly presenting Mass.

 

[James0235]

It means that the Mass is said according to the Church’s interpretation of the rubrics. However, it always seems that many of the learned lay Faithful seem to think it means Mass according to their interpretation of the Church’s interepretation of the rubrics.

It is relatively rare for the Church to need to give an interpretation of the rubrics. For the most part they speak for themselves. Say the Black and Do the Red. Unless it specifically says otherwise you are not permitted to change the text in the Missal (the black). And unless permission is otherwise given you are not allowed to do something contrary to the rubrics (the red).

Occasionally a bishop will ask for clarification. But, even after clarification is received the rubric will often be disregarded by priests because they don’t like it.

The perfect example of this is the washing of feet of women on Holy Thursday. The rubric very specifically says that the feet of men are to be washed. But, it does not specify that it needs to be 12 men. The Latin word used in the rubric means “men”. It can not be read to mean “men or women”.

The CDW was asked to clarify whether it was permitted to wash the feet of women. They responded that it was only to be men. That is the Church’s interpretation of the rubrics.

So, we have a rubric that says only men and a clarification from the CDW that backs this up. And how was this received by many priests and bishops? They continued their practice of washing the feet on women of Holy Thursday often justifying it by saying that 12 men were not available so women had to be used - even though the rubrics do not call for 12 men to have their feet washed.

(One bishop has been granted permission to wash the feet of women in his diocese. But, this does not change the fact that elsewhere it is an abuse.)

But, how many times have you seen someone on this forum argue that it is no big deal? It happens every single year. The Church has made its position known repeatedly. I (and every single person on this forum) have the right to attend a Mass where only men have their feet washed on Holy Thursays. And this is just an example - I have a right to attend Mass and not encounter any abuses at all.

(And this is not the time for those of you who dislike the rubrics against the washing of feet of women on Holy Thursday to argue that it is no big deal. We have plenty of time for that next Lent. And the Lent after that. And the Lent after that. And…)

Yes, it seems to me that there is a lot more freedom in the “rubrics” than a lot of people think. It seems to me that they are guidelines rather than strict rules.

There is a lot of freedom in the rubrics but only as far as there are often various permissible options.

For example there are various Eucharistic Prayers to choose from. There are different options for the Penitential Rite. Often there are multiple Opening Prayers to choose from.

But, if something is not permitted in the rubrics then doing it is an abuse. It is not permitted for the EMHCs to approach the altar before the priest receives communion. There is a specific rubric against it. But, in my experience it is probably the most common abuse. Is is a minor thing? Yes. But, it is still an abuse of the Mass.

I know a priest who always uses a glass chalice. The Church has clarified in Redemptionis Sacramentum that this is not permitted. In fact the practice is “reprobabted”. The Church very specifically says that Father can not use this chalice. But, he does it anyway because he does not like the rubric. (Yes, he is aware that it is not permitted).

The fact that the Church permits some options does not mean that a priest is free to be creative when no options are permitted:
Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right. This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm.** For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
(Redemptionis Sacramentum 7**)

I play piano in various parishes, and I have been present when the liturgist and the priest discuss the appropriateness of something for Mass. They refer to certain documents (I assume the GIRM, etc.), and make their decisions based on those documents.

It seems that there are different options given for Mass, and Father is not doing anything wrong or “abusive” to vary the Mass as long as he sticks with the guidelines in the rubrics.

You are correct. There are various options. And using them is not abusive. But, when someone complains about an abuse it is typically because a priest is doing something not permitted by the rubrics.

And it seems to me that as a lay person, I should submit to Father and trust that he and the person who is appointed as the liturgist are correctly presenting Mass.

Unfortunately many priest don’t have much respect for the Liturgy. It is not solely there fault. It seems as though in some areas an entire generation of priests were actually trained in the seminary that the rubrics were no big deal. Thankfully that does not seem to be happening any linger - at least around here.

The Church seems to understand this. That is why she tells us that we have both the the right and the duty to report abuses:

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.

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. 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.
(Redemptionis Sacramentum 183-184 emphasis mine)

James

 

[MusicMan]

But there are those who firmly believe that the priest should use no Eucharistic Prayer other than The Roman Canon. There are a lot people out there who try to intepret the rubrics according to their own beliefs, rather than the Church’s.

Another example is those who believe that all the music of Haugen, Haas, and Schutte should be banned.

 

[Phemie]

But there are those who firmly believe that the priest should use no Eucharistic Prayer other than The Roman Canon. There are a lot people out there who try to intepret the rubrics according to their own beliefs, rather than the Church’s.

Another example is those who believe that all the music of Haugen, Haas, and Schutte should be banned.

Believing either of those things has nothing to do with interpreting the rubrics. The priests are free to opt for the Eucharistic Prayer they prefer, they are not free to change the words within that EP, but some do that.

The rubrics say ‘the priest genuflects’ after the elevation of the Host and of the Chalice at Consecration and again at Communion - my pastor pointedly bows, just because he doesn’t want to genuflect, not because he has any valid reason not to.

The rubrics say that the priest says, “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, happy are those who are called to his supper”, we respond and then he receives Communion under both species then he gives Communion to the the altar servers and EMHCs.

Instead, our pastor pastor passes the ciborium around like a candy dish, everyone helps themselves, then he says “This is the Lamb of God…”, we respond and they all receive together. Then he drinks from the chalice and passes it to the EMHCs.

I don’t have to ‘interpret’ the rubrics to know he’s not supposed to do what he’s doing.

 

[johnnykins]

But there are those who firmly believe that the priest should use no Eucharistic Prayer other than The Roman Canon.

They are wrong if “should” is interpreted as “must”; they may have a point if should means “preferable”.

There are a lot people out there who try to intepret the rubrics according to their own beliefs, rather than the Church’s.

True - though this has overwhelmingly been a problem of those who want to “modernize” or not be restricted by Roman “rubricism”.

Another example is those who believe that all the music of Haugen, Haas, and Schutte should be banned.

Please God, not merely banned, but erased from all human memory…

 

[benedictgal]

In a speech not too terribly long ago, Francis Cardinal Arinze addressed the issue of creativity:

1. Creativity in Liturgical Celebrations
   One may now ask whether there is any room for creativity in the liturgy. The answer is that there is, but it has to be properly understood.

First of all, it*** is necessary to bear in mind that the public worship of the Church is something that we receive in faith through the Church. It is not something that we invent. Indeed the essentials of the sacraments are established by Christ Himself. And the detailed rites, including words and actions, have been carefully worked out, guarded and handed down by the Church along the centuries. It would, therefore, not be the proper attitude for an individual or a committee to keep thinking and planning each week how to invent a new way of celebrating Mass.***

Moreover, a priority at Mass and other liturgical acts is worship of God. The liturgy is not a field for self-expression, free creation and the demonstration of personal tastes. Idiosyncrasies tend to attract attention to the person rather than to the mysteries of Christ being celebrated. They can also upset, puzzle, annoy, mislead or confuse the congregation.

Nevertheless, it is also true that the liturgical norms do allow some flexibility. With reference to the central and most important liturgical action, the Mass, for example, we can speak of three levels of flexibility. First, there are in the Missal and the Lectionary some alternative texts, rites, chants, readings and blessings from which the priest celebrant can choose. (cf GIRM 24, RS 39) Then there are choices left at the competence of the diocesan bishop or the Conference of Bishops. Examples are regulation of concelebration, norms regarding the distribution of Communion under both kinds, the construction and ordering of churches, translations and some gestures. (cf SC 38, 40; GIRM 387, 390) Some such alternatives require recognitio from the Holy See. The most demanding level of variability concerns inculturation in the strictest sense. It involves action by the Conference of Bishops, after the conducting of deep interdisciplinary studies and recognitio from the Holy See.

Redemptionis Sacramentum is therefore able to say that “ample flexibility is given for appropriate creativity aimed at allowing each celebration to be adapted to the needs of the participants, to their comprehension, their interior preparation and their gifts, according to established liturgical norms”. (RS 39) The last phrase is important: “according to established liturgical norms”. The paragraph of Redemptionis Sacramentum concludes with a recall of the crucial observation that ***“it should be remembered that the power of the liturgical celebrations does not consist in frequently altering the rites, but in probing more deeply the word of God and the mystery being celebrated”. ***What the people are asking for every Sunday from their pastor is not a novelty but a celebration of the sacred mysteries that nourishes faith, manifests devotion, awakens piety, leads to prayer and incites to active charity in daily life.

As the faithful, we should hope that our priests are celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the form and manner required by the Church, and, when there is room for legitimate flexibility, then that is being employed. However, if this is not happening, then there are serious problems that need to be addressed and corrected.