GIRM - Mandatory or Optional?

[cjaubert]

I was discusssing with a deacon at my church some inconsistencies between our Mass liturgy and the GIRM. He acknowledged the inconsistencies, but explained them by claiming that the GIRM was optional, not mandatory. He said that priests were given the right to alter the statements in the GIRM, since such statements were merely suggestions, not mandates.

I hardly think this is accurate, but I cannot find any authority one way or the other. My question in this post is, if the GIRM says something (e.g., that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should not approach the altar before the priest has received communion (article 162) or that a priest should pray the Our Father “with hands extended” (as opposed to holding hands with a Deacon; article 152), is the GIRM statement indeed a mandate or merely a suggestion that the priest can disregard at his discretion?

 

[Ace86]

Everything in the GIRM concerns rubrics. Rubrics in the Mass are supposed to be followed at each and every Mass. If enough rubrics are broken, then the Consecration does not take place.

The GIRM is mandatory. I would first consult the priest you are concerned with, and then I would consult with your bishop expressing your concerns. If you have to, then go to Mass at another parish.

 

[cjaubert]

Ace, I agree with your comment that “The GIRM is Mandatory.” The point of my post, however, was, where does it say that and how can I prove it to the priest, or anyone else?

 

[Sam88]

“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. … Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority”. (Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy).

So the first question regarding any differences between the GIRM and practice at your parish is whether it is approved by the bishop.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I thought the “I” stood for “Instruction” not “Suggestion”.

Report the deacon immediately. This must nor be allowed to Stand.

PF

 

[John_Lilburne]

I was discusssing with a deacon at my church some inconsistencies between our Mass liturgy and the GIRM. He acknowledged the inconsistencies, but explained them by claiming that the GIRM was optional, not mandatory. He said that priests were given the right to alter the statements in the GIRM, since such statements were merely suggestions, not mandates.

I hardly think this is accurate, but I cannot find any authority one way or the other. My question in this post is, if the GIRM says something (e.g., that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should not approach the altar before the priest has received communion (article 162) or that a priest should pray the Our Father “with hands extended” (as opposed to holding hands with a Deacon; article 152), is the GIRM statement indeed a mandate or merely a suggestion that the priest can disregard at his discretion?

Here is a possible conversation to have with the deacon.
cjaubert: Before your ordination you would have been required to take an Oath of Fidelity. Did you?
Deacon: Yes
cjaubert: That Oath of Fidelity would have included “I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the whole Church and I shall observe all ecclesiatical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law”. Do you recall that?
Deacon: Yes
cjaubert: The Code of Canon Law includes canon 846, which includes: “The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.” Do you agree that the Roman Missal is a liturgical book which has been approved?
Deacon: I agree it is a liturgical book.
cjaubert: Then by not following the GIRM you are not following a liturgical book, not following the Code of Canon Law, and breaking your Oath of Fidelity. How do you justify this?
Deacon: …

References:
The Code of Canon Law: New Revised English Translation, HarperCollins Liturgical, 1997, ISBN 0-00-599375-X.
John Huels, The Pastoral Companion, 1995, Franciscan Press, ISBN 0819909688, page 379.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I was discusssing with a deacon at my church some inconsistencies between our Mass liturgy and the GIRM. He acknowledged the inconsistencies, but explained them by claiming that the GIRM was optional, not mandatory. He said that priests were given the right to alter the statements in the GIRM, since such statements were merely suggestions, not mandates.

I hardly think this is accurate, but I cannot find any authority one way or the other. My question in this post is, if the GIRM says something (e.g., that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should not approach the altar before the priest has received communion (article 162) or that a priest should pray the Our Father “with hands extended” (as opposed to holding hands with a Deacon; article 152), is the GIRM statement indeed a mandate or merely a suggestion that the priest can disregard at his discretion?

Here is a possible conversation to have with the deacon.
cjaubert: Before your ordination you would have been required to take an Oath of Fidelity. Did you?
Deacon: Yes
cjaubert: That Oath of Fidelity would have included “I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the whole Church and I shall observe all ecclesiatical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law”. Do you recall that?
Deacon: Yes
cjaubert: The Code of Canon Law includes canon 846, which includes: “The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.” Do you agree that the Roman Missal is a liturgical book which has been approved?
Deacon: I agree it is a liturgical book.
cjaubert: Then by not following the GIRM you are not following a liturgical book, not following the Code of Canon Law, and breaking your Oath of Fidelity. How do you justify this?
Deacon: …

References:
The Code of Canon Law: New Revised English Translation, HarperCollins Liturgical, 1997, ISBN 0-00-599375-X.
John Huels, The Pastoral Companion, 1995, Franciscan Press, ISBN 0819909688, page 379.

 

[cjaubert]

"So the first question regarding any differences between the GIRM and practice at your parish is whether it is approved by the bishop.

I do not believe the bishop has the right to alter ANYTHING he wants, or EVERYTHING. As I understand it (memory may be faulty), there are certain things the bishop can alter, and certain things he cannot. This distinction HAS to be written down somewhere.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Ace, I agree with your comment that “The GIRM is Mandatory.” The point of my post, however, was, where does it say that and how can I prove it to the priest, or anyone else?

The GIRM becomes mandatory when the Bishop of the diocese or the USCCB sets a mandatory implementation date. Not following the Rubrics however does not invalidate the Consecration. Unless the words of Consecration themselves are not spoken properly.

 

[Walking_Home]

I do not believe the bishop has the right to alter ANYTHING he wants, or EVERYTHING. As I understand it (memory may be faulty), there are certain things the bishop can alter, and certain things he cannot. This distinction HAS to be written down somewhere.

---

From the following any and all changes need approval from Rome.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III

[27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass[62] and reiterated the same in 1988.[63] Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.[64]

[28.] 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.[65]

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

This is a classic case of the insufficient education many dioceses offer for their permanent diaconate program. One deacon I know has had to unlearn much of the information he received at the hands of the sisters (!) who ran the program in his diocese. Like it or not, the GIRM is mandatory.

 

[mystified]

Ah, the Age of Whatever.
The Church published GIRM because there was nothing else to do that day . Our society, inside and outside the Church, seems to see everything as relative, thus the Tablets probably really had engraved upon them the “Ten Suggestions”.

 

[LeahInancsi]

I was discusssing with a deacon at my church some inconsistencies between our Mass liturgy and the GIRM. He acknowledged the inconsistencies, but explained them by claiming that the GIRM was optional, not mandatory. He said that priests were given the right to alter the statements in the GIRM, since such statements were merely suggestions, not mandates.

I hardly think this is accurate, but I cannot find any authority one way or the other. My question in this post is, if the GIRM says something (e.g., that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should not approach the altar before the priest has received communion (article 162) or that a priest should pray the Our Father “with hands extended” (as opposed to holding hands with a Deacon; article 152), is the GIRM statement indeed a mandate or merely a suggestion that the priest can disregard at his discretion?

*162. The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, e.g., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose. In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion.

These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.*

There’s one word in item #62 that leads me to believe that there is some flexibility in this practice. “SHOULD”!!!

In my opinion, this sounds like one of those situations similar to when it is proper to sit after communion and whether to sit or stand during communion. I’m willing to bet the bishop has some latitude here.

Please don’t make me waste the time of my DRE and priest who will have to educate me in the fine points of every little “i” dot and “t” cross in the GIRM, Rubrics, etc.

 

[cjaubert]

There’s one word in item #62 that leads me to believe that there is some flexibility in this practice. “SHOULD”!!!

What is this, loophole liturgy? It says “should not.” Why would we then do it? Why not accept the spirit of the words, even though, technically and literally, they may not mean “shall not”? In other words, why look for loopholes to get around what the Church, rather obviously, wants us to do?

 

[cjaubert]

The GIRM becomes mandatory when the Bishop of the diocese or the USCCB sets a mandatory implementation date.

Is there any American diocese where the Bishop or diocese has NOT implemented the GIRM? This comment seems to make no sense, but perhaps I am missing the point.

 

[Sam88]

I do not believe the bishop has the right to alter ANYTHING he wants, or EVERYTHING. As I understand it (memory may be faulty), there are certain things the bishop can alter, and certain things he cannot. This distinction HAS to be written down somewhere.

Yes, this is correct. The Bishop has some discrecion, only where that is stated in Canon law, GIRM, or other authoratative documents. But in any case, if there is a serious misunderstanding about how the rules apply in a parish that is not resolved by the pastor, the Bishop is the one who should be contacted.

 

[LeahInancsi]

What is this, loophole liturgy? It says “should not.” Why would we then do it? Why not accept the spirit of the words, even though, technically and literally, they may not mean “shall not”? In other words, why look for loopholes to get around what the Church, rather obviously, wants us to do?

For practical reasons where minor deviations are irrelevant. When do the EMHC’s at your parish approach the altar? Before or after the priest has received communion?

I think this is one of those situations where the bishop has the discretion to vary.

 

[Brendan]

I think this is one of those situations where the bishop has the discretion to vary.

On what do you base that decision on?

There are several sections in the GIRM where either the priest or the bishop has discresion. They are clearly labled.

My examination of the GIRM instruction at this point seems not to be in that category.

 

[plato3]

Chapter twenty-nine of the GIRM gives the bishop authority to make certain adaptations. (Toward the end of the page.)

www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/chapter29.shtml

 

[plato3]

Correction on above post…should be Chapter 9 not 29. sorry about that.

www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/chapter9.shtml