How strict should one get on the rubrics?

[pnewton]

I have to say after checking the appropriate section Redemptionis Sacramentum, I find that the local ordinary is the one that would handle this matter. If the bishop finds this to be a difficult case and the matter grave, he can notify the CDWDS and they will advise him.

Hence whenever a local Ordinary or the Ordinary of a religious Institute or of a Society of apostolic life receives at least a plausible notice of a delict or abuse concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, let him carefully investigate, either personally or by means of another worthy cleric, concerning the facts and the circumstances as well as the imputability.

The only time the bishop is mandated to refer the matter is in matters of *graviora delicta, *and then it is handled by the CDF.

Delicts against the faith as well as *graviora delicta *committed in the celebration of the Eucharist and the other Sacraments are to be referred without delay to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which “examines [them] and, if necessary, proceeds to the declaration or imposition of canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law”.

This would apply in case like using the Eucharist for Satanic rituals, and a few other extreme situations.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter VIII

 

[Brendan_64]

If the bishop finds this to be a difficult case and the matter grave, he can notify the CDWDS and they will advise him.
The only time the bishop is mandated to refer the matter is in matters of *graviora delicta, *and then it is handled by the CDF.

That is not entirely true. It states that if it is gave matter then the bishop must report it to the CDWDS as a matter of urgency, but this does not state that the only cases the bishop can report are such cases. Indeed, and Catholic, not just the bishop, could report any case of abuse, but clearly this would only be advisable in very serious cases, and it does suggest (but not insist) that a lay-person contacts the bishop in the first instance.

“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.”

This does no limit who can report to the CDWDS or what abuses they can report (although clearly, common sense should prevail). Complaining to the Holy See because a priest said a weekday Mass, on one occasion, without wearing a chasuble, would clearly be a waste of their time.

This would apply in case like using the Eucharist for Satanic rituals, and a few other extreme situations.

Grave situations would also include less ‘dramatic’ things, such as a priest concelebrating the Mass with Protestant clergy (including Anglicans). Sadly this sort of thing has been known to happen.

 

[pnewton]

That is not entirely true. It states that if it is gave matter then the bishop must report it to the CDWDS as a matter of urgency, but this does not state that the only cases the bishop can report are such cases.

I said the same thing you said. I stated the only condition where such a report is** mandatory**.

Grave situations would also include less ‘dramatic’ things, such as a priest concelebrating the Mass with Protestant clergy (including Anglicans).

I read that part too. That is why I linked the document. There is also a statement that even what was listed was not to be taken as exhaustive.

 

[Brendan_64]

Fair enough Pnewton, I misuderstood your post, my apologies.

 

[janeway529]

The GIRM is liturgical law. That is why any changes that a bishops conference approves are only affective when the CDWDS issues the recognito, and even then, under the intent that the CDWDS approved it under.

This was also noted in regards to posture

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_posture.htm

That was even recognized by the Vatican when RS came out. Cardinal Mahony of LA objected, stating that

1. LA had been using flagons to consecrate the species of wine for several years, therefore it had the Canonical force of long standing particular law.
2. The CDWDS had no authority to overrule long standing particular law.

The CDWDS responded that it DID have the authority to revoke such, and specifically referenced Canon 16. (which is why I brought it up)

The Cardinal replied that the CDWDS did not and took it to the Rota.

The Rota ruled in favor of the CDWDS. Thus the use of flagons was removed in the archdiocese of LA, over the objections of Cardinal Mahony.

I wonder if there was an appeal or a dispensation given, since even now I’ve seen the practice take place during large diocesan gatherings, especially at the cathedral. I guess the exception is if most, if not all, of the wine is poured before the Consecration and the decanter is made of finer material?

Interestingly, at the Installation Mass of Bishop Vann in Orange (Dec 2012), this took place and in this video, you can clearly see the Apostolic Nuncio doing a double-take.
vimeo.com/55320546