Footwashing, the Priesthood and the Eucharist

[FrDavid96]

I think you mean Canon 16. I don’t see where that says that every statement of the CDWDS is an act of authentic interpretation as defined by Canon 16 and so has the force of law. That’s my point–it doesn’t claim that. One can’t simply say that because the CDWDS issued a given statement that therefore it’s law. It may or may not be.

At least, that’s the way I read it, for what it’s worth. (which may or may not be out to lunch)

And so, following that understanding, the fact that the USCCB can also exercise legislative authority, there exists the possibility concerning (hypothetical) Issue Number One that statement (a) from the CDWDS could be non-law and statement (b) from the USCCB could be legally binding. Where the statements differed, if they did, (b) would have the force of law and (a) would not.

Yes, I do mean canon 16 (not 15)

1. “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.”

Therefore, the letter from the CDWS giving the interpretation of the liturgical law is binding. You might not “see” it this way, but that’s a fact. Canon law is clear on this.

You have said many times that the USCCB has legislative authority. On the one hand I agree (provided that the Holy See has granted such authority for the particular case). On the other hand, that is completely irrelevant, because the USCCB did not make any decisions (liturgical law or otherwise) in this matter. I cannot help but notice that you keep writing as if the USCCB had made some kind of decision here. That’s not the case.

As for your situations a & b the truth lies in exactly the opposite of what you’ve posted. The USCCB cannot over-rule the Holy See.

a. An authentic interpretation made by the “one whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret” (in this case the CDWS) is binding.

b. Is irrelevant here because the USCCB has not attempted any liturgical law on the matter.

Since the CDWS is the higher authority in liturgical matters, if a and b are in conflict then the decisions of the CDWS over-rule those of the USCCB. I don’t know why you would imagine that the situation would be reversed. Decisions by the USCCB in matters of liturgy must be approved by Rome–without that approval, they have no force of law (and indeed are not law until that happens).

Can you cite anything at all to support your claim (of a and b) that the USCCB can over-rule the Holy See???

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, I do mean canon 16 (not 15)

1. “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.”

Therefore, the letter from the CDWS giving the interpretation of the liturgical law is binding. You might not “see” it this way, but that’s a fact. Canon law is clear on this.

You have said many times that the USCCB has legislative authority. On the one hand I agree (provided that the Holy See has granted such authority for the particular case). On the other hand, that is completely irrelevant, because the USCCB did not make any decisions (liturgical law or otherwise) in this matter. I cannot help but notice that you keep writing as if the USCCB had made some kind of decision here. That’s not the case.

As for your situations a & b the truth lies in exactly the opposite of what you’ve posted. The USCCB cannot over-rule the Holy See.

a. An authentic interpretation made by the “one whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret” (in this case the CDWS) is binding.

b. Is irrelevant here because the USCCB has not attempted any liturgical law on the matter.

Since the CDWS is the higher authority in liturgical matters, if a and b are in conflict then the decisions of the CDWS over-rule those of the USCCB. I don’t know why you would imagine that the situation would be reversed. Decisions by the USCCB in matters of liturgy must be approved by Rome–without that approval, they have no force of law (and indeed are not law until that happens).

Can you cite anything at all to support your claim (of a and b) that the USCCB can over-rule the Holy See???

Thank you again for your thoughtful response. I do appreciate your dialogue, despite the fact that it seems that we disagree on a number of things, and despite my shortcomings in the way I may at times express my thoughts in this medium.

Here’s my point, or question, or concern, as I understand Church teaching (feel free to let me know where precisely you disagree with my thinking. And, of course, if, as I suspect, this conversation is too obscure for a general thread feel free to send me a PM…thanks!):

Both the CDWDS and the USCCB have certain though limited legislative powers.

To understand when either group is acting in such capacity, i.e. with the binding authority of law in the specific cases or situations that they have been granted that authority, the actual circumstances, situation, document, etc., needs to be considered along with the whole gamut of course of (in this case, primarily liturgical) law.

Given that not EVERYTHING the CDWDS and the USCCB issues is, strictly and canonically speaking, legislative, and therefore is not universally binding as law, by definition, there exists the possibility that each group could issue a “statement” (or whatever term one might prefer) on a given topic that would differ in some respects from the other’s statement. One of these may in fact be legislative, the other may not. In such a case, the one that is in fact–according to Church teaching–legislative and therefore binding on the faithful is the one that “trumps” the other. It’s not simply a matter of who issued such-and-such a teaching, we also need to consider the weight/authority/form/audience/etc. of that teaching to properly assess the true authority on a given community.

 

[diggerdomer]

The key phrase is “within certain defined limits”; thus, it is not carte blanche, as you seem to think that it is. Only the Holy See enjoys complete jurisdiction, something that you seem to think is not possible.

Good grief.

I never said, implied, stated, suggested, claimed, declared, wrote, typed, said, (pick any other similar verb) ANYTHING at all about the USCCB or any group apart from the Magisterium enjoying “carte blanche” jurisdiction.

Where did you read anything I wrote otherwise? Good grief! I’ve been saying all along that the USCCB and the CDWDS enjoy LIMITED legislative authority, as the Church teaches. I have never claimed anything otherwise.

Please, please, please, please as I’ve said again and again and again…rather than reading into my posts something that I never said if you have a question just ask me to clarify rather than falsely accusing me of things I never said, implied, stated, suggested, claimed, declared, wrote, typed, said, etc.

And of course there may be occasions where I type/say something inadequately, and later I realize oops what I typed the other day may come across differently than I intended it…so again, please, just ask, there’s no need to accuse.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you again for your thoughtful response. I do appreciate your dialogue, despite the fact that it seems that we disagree on a number of things, and despite my shortcomings in the way I may at times express my thoughts in this medium.

Here’s my point, or question, or concern, as I understand Church teaching (feel free to let me know where precisely you disagree with my thinking. And, of course, if, as I suspect, this conversation is too obscure for a general thread feel free to send me a PM…thanks!):

Both the CDWDS and the USCCB have certain though limited legislative powers.

To understand when either group is acting in such capacity, i.e. with the binding authority of law in the specific cases or situations that they have been granted that authority, the actual circumstances, situation, document, etc., needs to be considered along with the whole gamut of course of (in this case, primarily liturgical) law.

Given that not EVERYTHING the CDWDS and the USCCB issues is, strictly and canonically speaking, legislative, and therefore is not universally binding as law, by definition, there exists the possibility that each group could issue a “statement” (or whatever term one might prefer) on a given topic that would differ in some respects from the other’s statement. One of these may in fact be legislative, the other may not. In such a case, the one that is in fact–according to Church teaching–legislative and therefore binding on the faithful is the one that “trumps” the other. It’s not simply a matter of who issued such-and-such a teaching, we also need to consider the weight/authority/form/audience/etc. of that teaching to properly assess the true authority on a given community.

Not quite. The CDWS has some authority to issue liturgical legislation, but is the final authority in issuing binding interpretations, excepting only the pope himself. Every interpretation of the liturgical law which is issued by the CDWS is universally binding because it is their role to interpret such laws (again, canon law clearly states this). This is the “given”.

When it comes to liturgical laws made by the conference of bishops, there is no authority to issue such laws unless and until they are approved by the Holy See (except in cases where prior permission has been given–for example defining the sign of peace or releasing from certain holy days of obligation). The USCCB cannot issue liturgical norms without Rome’s approval, so without this approval, not only is the “law” not binding, but the law does not even exist. A committee newsletter, has no authority to issue any laws, not by the most generous stretch of the imagination. A law which doesn’t exist is not binding on anyone, so it’s not a question of which law has the higher authority, because only one actually is a law.

To keep with the original topic, the committee newsletter which issued the statement about expanding the Holy Thursday rite has not one iota of authority to issue any liturgical laws–absolutely none. So what we have here is a binding interpretation of the law by a legitimate authority on the one hand, conflicting with a non-binding usurpation of authority on the other hand.

 

[benedictgal]

Good grief.

I never said, implied, stated, suggested, claimed, declared, wrote, typed, said, (pick any other similar verb) ANYTHING at all about the USCCB or any group apart from the Magisterium enjoying “carte blanche” jurisdiction.

Where did you read anything I wrote otherwise? Good grief! I’ve been saying all along that the USCCB and the CDWDS enjoy LIMITED legislative authority, as the Church teaches. I have never claimed anything otherwise.

Please, please, please, please as I’ve said again and again and again…rather than reading into my posts something that I never said if you have a question just ask me to clarify rather than falsely accusing me of things I never said, implied, stated, suggested, claimed, declared, wrote, typed, said, etc.

And of course there may be occasions where I type/say something inadequately, and later I realize oops what I typed the other day may come across differently than I intended it…so again, please, just ask, there’s no need to accuse.

I have read your posts, as have others, who have also come to the same conclusion that I reached, diggerdomer. You seem to think that the a committee of the USCCB has all of this immense rule-making authority when, in reality, it does not. Unless the USCCB puts forth an adaptation to a norm to a vote and 2/3 of the Latin Rite bishops agree to it and then it goes to Rome for the necessary recognitio, then, it happens. But, it is not for the USCCB and its committee on Divine Worship to make that call solo. These adaptations need the recognitio of the Holy See and in this case, as Fr. David has pointed out repeatedly, the CDWDS has that jurisdictional authority. It supercedes the USCCB.

 

[diggerdomer]

IYou seem to think that the a committee of the USCCB has all of this immense rule-making authority when, in reality, it does not.

See my last post.

 

[benedictgal]

See my last post.

I read your last post. You still maintain that the USCCB has authority and Fr. David correctly explained the issue. Furthermore, when you cited the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy as your source, you did not notice that the authority carries limits. It is not carte blanche. In addition, a committee of the USCCB issuing a statement is not anywhere near the same caliber as a ruling from the CDWDS, something that you do not seem to want to believe.

 

[diggerdomer]

The CDWS has some authority to issue liturgical legislation, but is the final authority in issuing binding interpretations, excepting only the pope himself.

I’m sorry, I’m not quite getting what you mean by that sentence. I may be misreading it. What do you mean? Again, sorry, I just didn’t understand.

Every interpretation of the liturgical law which is issued by the CDWS is universally binding because it is their role to interpret such laws (again, canon law clearly states this). This is the "given

Ok, I disagree, and of course I might be wrong. For example: as I understand it, someone can ask a question of the CDWDS concerning a particular liturgical law. The CDWDS can respond to that “person” (or whomever asked the question). As I understand it, in such a case, the response from the CDWDS, presuming they enjoy the faculty of “authentically interpreting” law iaw Canon 16, would be binding on the questioner/recipient. BUT…and here’s the rub…if promulgated only as an individual response to this particular questioner, it would not be legally binding on the universal Church.

Agree or not?

When it comes to liturgical laws made by the conference of bishops, there is no authority to issue such laws unless and until they are approved by the Holy See (except in cases where prior permission has been given–for example defining the sign of peace or releasing from certain holy days of obligation).

Sounds like we agree…there are “exceptions” where Church law allows Bishops’ Conferences to legislate as Vatican II taught.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m sorry, I’m not quite getting what you mean by that sentence. I may be misreading it. What do you mean? Again, sorry, I just didn’t understand.

Ok, I disagree, and of course I might be wrong. For example: as I understand it, someone can ask a question of the CDWDS concerning a particular liturgical law. The CDWDS can respond to that “person” (or whomever asked the question). As I understand it, in such a case, the response from the CDWDS, presuming they enjoy the faculty of “authentically interpreting” law iaw Canon 16, would be binding on the questioner/recipient. BUT…and here’s the rub…if promulgated only as an individual response to this particular questioner, it would not be legally binding on the universal Church.

Agree or not?

QUOTE=FrDavid96;5137856]When it comes to liturgical laws made by the conference of bishops, there is no authority to issue such laws unless and until they are approved by the Holy See (except in cases where prior permission has been given–for example defining the sign of peace or releasing from certain holy days of obligation).

Sounds like we agree…there are “exceptions” where Church law allows Bishops’ Conferences to legislate as Vatican II taught.

But, you are missing the point that Fr. David made. He notes that conferences can only act unless prior authority has been given to the Holy See for national episcopal conferences to do so. Again, you seem to think that the CDWDS is not the ultimate authority, but it is. When the Constitution says that regulation belongs to the Apostolic See, it means, in the case of liturgy, the CDWDS, which acts with the Holy Father’s authority. The only one who can overrule the CDWDS is the Pope, himself.

 

[diggerdomer]

Again, you seem to think that the CDWDS is not the ultimate authority, but it is.

No I don’t (you again misinterpret/assume whatever)

The ultimate authority is not the CDWDS. God first, the Magisterium of the Church second. The CDWDS serves the latter.

 

[benedictgal]

No I don’t (you again misinterpret/assume whatever)

The ultimate authority is not the CDWDS. God first, the Magisterium of the Church second. The CDWDS serves the latter.

Nice try. Yes, we all agree that God is the authority, but, he put St. Peter and his Successors, the Popes, in charge. You seem to think that the CDWDS is just an appendage when, in fact, it acts with the authority of the Holy Father. The CDWDS is part of the Apostolic See. It is the curial department in charge of regulating the liturgy and the sacraments just like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is in charge of regulating the theology and catechism of the Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m sorry, I’m not quite getting what you mean by that sentence. I may be misreading it. What do you mean? Again, sorry, I just didn’t understand.

It should have been 2 seperate sentences. 1. The CDWS does have some authority to issue liturgical norms (laws). 2. The CDWS is the final authority on interpreting liturgical laws/norms, and can only be overturned by the pope himself.

Ok, I disagree, and of course I might be wrong. For example: as I understand it, someone can ask a question of the CDWDS concerning a particular liturgical law. The CDWDS can respond to that “person” (or whomever asked the question). As I understand it, in such a case, the response from the CDWDS, presuming they enjoy the faculty of “authentically interpreting” law iaw Canon 16, would be binding on the questioner/recipient. BUT…and here’s the rub…if promulgated only as an individual response to this particular questioner, it would not be legally binding on the universal Church.

Agree or not?

Not.
If a person asks a question about liturgical laws, then the answer applies to everyone for whom the law itself applies. On the other hand, someone (usually a bishop) might request an exception to the law, and if that exception is granted, it would only apply to the one asking. So in the second case, yes, I’d agree.

Sounds like we agree…there are “exceptions” where Church law allows Bishops’ Conferences to legislate as Vatican II taught.

Remember that “as Vatican II taught” means that such decisions (ie liturgical laws) must be approved by the Pope; we can’t forget that part.
Sacrosanctum Concilium
22. 1. Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the Liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
   So yes I would certainly agree “as Vatican II taught.”

 

[diggerdomer]

1. The CDWS does have some authority to issue liturgical norms (laws).

Yes. Of course.

1. The CDWS is the final authority on interpreting liturgical laws/norms, and can only be overturned by the pope himself.

Ok then…you agree with me…the CDWDS is not the final authority!

I would claim that the** Magisterium (Pope and Bishops) **are the final LEGISLATIVE–i.e. law-making–authority. I think we agree here at least somewhat…you note that the CDWDS is subject to the Pope, I would say they are subject to the Pope and the college of Bishops…but can we at least agree they are not the “final authority”?

If a person asks a question about liturgical laws, then the answer applies to everyone for whom the law itself applies.

I disagree. The answer applies to the questioner unless the response is promulgated in a way that de facto applies universally. Can you refer us to any canonical sources that would indicate that a response to an individual questioner is binding, de facto and if only given as a response to that individual, on the universal Church?

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes. Of course.
Ok then…you agree with me…the CDWDS is not the final authority!

I would claim that the** Magisterium (Pope and Bishops) **are the final LEGISLATIVE–i.e. law-making–authority. I think we agree here at least somewhat…you note that the CDWDS is subject to the Pope, I would say they are subject to the Pope and the college of Bishops…but can we at least agree they are not the “final authority”?

That’s actually an impossible situation.
Remember that the pope is both a member and the head of the college of bishops. The college of bishops cannot act without its head, so it would be impossible for the college to act unless the pope were also to act. It’s likewise impossible for the CDWS to act independently of the pope, since the Congregation is his representatives. They cannot represent the pope to the pope.

I disagree. The answer applies to the questioner unless the response is promulgated in a way that de facto applies universally. Can you refer us to any canonical sources that would indicate that a response to an individual questioner is binding, de facto and if only given as a response to that individual, on the universal Church?

Since a letter from the CDWS is an interpretation of the law, it would apply to everyone for whom the law itself applies until the law is changed by competent authority. It’s not realy the “response” which is binding. It’s the law which is binding. The response merely explains the law, and that’s why it would apply to everyone.

 

[diggerdomer]

T

Since a letter from the CDWS is an interpretation of the law, it would apply to everyone for whom the law itself applies until the law is changed by competent authority. It’s not realy the “response” which is binding. It’s the law which is binding. The response merely explains the law, and that’s why it would apply to everyone.

Nope. If the Vatican wants to make an individual/personal response legally binding to the universal Church/faithful they can do so, and they have the means to do so.

It’s simply not true that everything put forth by the CDWDS is legally binding to the universal Church.

I am not saying take my word for it, but find someone in your parish or diocese who has a basic canon law background to confirm or deny that. Is that possible? Can you check with someone with a Canon Law background to help us resolve this?

 

[FrDavid96]

Nope. If the Vatican wants to make an individual/personal response legally binding to the universal Church/faithful they can do so, and they have the means to do so.

It’s simply not true that everything put forth by the CDWDS is legally binding to the universal Church.

I am not saying take my word for it, but find someone in your parish or diocese who has a basic canon law background to confirm or deny that. Is that possible? Can you check with someone with a Canon Law background to help us resolve this?

Yes, they have the means. And that “means” is the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
CHRISTUS DOMINUS

If you can explain how the CDWS can be both “perform[ing] their duties in his name and with his authority” but at the same time, that authority is not binding, I’m listening.