How binding is Redemptionis Sacramentum?

[Brendan]

Quite right. However, #183 is talking about “irreverence or distortion” and “abuses” of the Eucharist. That’s not the context that Brendan64 was talking about. In the case of the question of whether it’s appropriate to allow a service in the absence of a priest, there’s the possibility of “confusion”, but not sacrilege or abuse of the Eucharist. So, #183 doesn’t apply in the context of our current discussion. (If the question Brendan64 raised was “what should we do if the bishop allows for the service, and I see the lay person who is leading the service profane the Eucharist?”, then you’d have a point. Given that this is *not *what’s at stake here, well… )

First of all, what I is posted is in answer to your question and your question did not specify that it was only in the context of Communion Services. The question was phrased in a way that was generic to all abuses.

In regards to your specific point.

It may or may not apply. The bishop IS the correct authority to allow or disallow Communion Services in the Absence of a Priest.

If the bishop did not give the appropriate permission, then it is an abuse, and Brendan64 can seek to remedy the abuse.

What needs to be ascertained is if it is done in conjunction with the bishop’s approval.

Since Brendan64 did not know of the requirement, it is appropriate to do some research first.

 

[Just_Lurking]

My original post simply asks how binding is Redemptionis Sacrmentum on such matters.

Redemptionis Sacramentum is an Instruction, whose binding force is defined in canon law as follows:

Can. 34 §1. Instructions clarify the prescripts of laws and elaborate on and determine the methods to be observed in fulfilling them. They are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws. Those who possess executive power legitimately issue such instructions within the limits of their competence.

§2. The ordinances of instructions do not derogate from laws. If these ordinances cannot be reconciled with the prescripts of laws, they lack all force.

§3. Instructions cease to have force not only by explicit or implicit revocation of the competent authority who issued them or of the superior of that authority but also by the cessation of the law for whose clarification or execution they were given.

 

[Brendan_64]

Since Brendan64 did not know of the requirement, it is appropriate to do some research first.

I am aware of that, and have posted the paragraph from the document that states that. I’m not going to go into details etc. as that isn’t appropriate.

Quite right. However, #183 is talking about “irreverence or distortion” and “abuses” of the Eucharist. That’s not the context that Brendan64 was talking about. In the case of the question of whether it’s appropriate to allow a service in the absence of a priest, there’s the possibility of “confusion”, but not sacrilege or abuse of the Eucharist. So, #183 doesn’t apply in the context of our current discussion. (If the question Brendan64 raised was “what should we do if the bishop allows for the service, and I see the lay person who is leading the service profane the Eucharist?”, then you’d have a point. Given that this is *not *what’s at stake here, well… )

It doesn’t have to be a grave matter to be considered an ‘abuse’. The whole purpose of the document is to tackle abuses of all sorts, in connection with the Eucharist, from abuses of discipline to grave abuses. Paragraph 183 doesn’t refer simply to grave abuses, it states that all abuses (without exception) should be thoroughly corrected. The entire document exists to tackle abuses.

Paragraph 4 states “In this regard it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease.”

It is clear from this that it is not only grave matters that are considered to be abuses, but that other abuses have become almost habitual. This clearly does not refer to sacrilege, but to abuses of discipline.

All people can make mistakes, and things can happen as a result of confusion, however if things continue to happen (or are allowed to happen) that go against what is stipluated in RS, then that constitutes an abuse (even if it is not a grave abuse).

I do not think it is right and proper either to take the view, “OK that is what the words of the documents say, let’s see how far we can push the envelope and stretch the boundaries, in order to carry on doing sopmething which we know the thrust and intent of the document disapproves of, and use the limitations of the words in a relatively short document to cover us.”

Phrases such the bishop should “not easily grant permission” should not be interpreted as, “It doesn’t specify exactly what easily means, so I can carry on granting permission as easily as I wish to, routinely even if I wish”.

RS was a much needed document and ought to be very much welcomed by all. We are the Roman Catholic Church, not the ‘X’ Catholic Church (where X can be parish, diocese etc.). Experimentation and ‘adaptation’ of Liturgy, and ‘pushing the envelope’ , in order to ‘meet the needs’ of our specific communities, lead us down a slippery slope.

I’m going to bow out of this conversation, as my initial question has now been answered, so thank you all for that.

God Bless