How strict should one get on the rubrics?

[pnewton]

The answer to the question in general is that one should be as strict as the bishop is, as he is tasked with interpreting and implementing the rubrics. We are not. On the other hand, we have a right to a properly celebrated liturgy, so there is a procedure the laity can follow, but we have to be satisfied with the results, even when we think the decision is wrong.

Here is one diocese when the bishop leaves it optional.

catholicdos.org/file/RubricforAdorationoftheBlessedSacrament.pdf

When the Blessed Sacrament is incensed, the thurible is swung back and forth three times.

 

[pnewton]

Well apparently a concerned Catholic can’t voice his concern for due reverence in the presence of God on earth without being attacked. This is a shame.

I do not think anyone has suggested we not revere God. I also do not think anyone has been attacked. When someone asks an opinion, offering an opinion is not an attack. It is an answer. Only the original poster can decide on balance the best course of action.

 

[corsair]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but, Rubrics are “rules” not loose suggestions. They should be followed whether its the EF or the OF. And never mix the two sets.

 

[pnewton]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but, Rubrics are “rules” not loose suggestions. They should be followed whether its the EF or the OF. And never mix the two sets.

No one said they are loose suggestions. Rubrics is Latin for red, because the writing is in read. I think properly, they could be labeled instructions.

 

[Brendan_64]

Brendan 64, that liturgical abuse should not occur goes without saying. However, do realize there were many criticisms of the older rite in the 60’s when it came to being strict.

I attend a regular OF Mass. I love the OF Mass, but the fact that the Mass is an OF Mass doesn’t mean that there is scope to adapt the rubrics as the priest sees fit. The rubrics are there for a reason, and abuses of the Liturgy are not permitted.

It seemed to many that part of the Mass reform movement was to get the folks (and liturgical committees) more involved.

Full, active and conscious participation does not extend to designing and adapting the form of the Liturgy. The rubrics are to be followed and deliberate deviation from the rubrics is considered an abuse .

That may be one of the reasons why so many options are allowed in the newer form.

Actions that are allowed are not the issue.

Whether many of the actions of the priest overly exceed what was intended is not a judgement we can make in most cases IMO. That belongs to the bishops mostly; we are always free to contact him if we see something as a definite abuse.

Yes we can make those judgments, and we ought to. Redemptionis Sacramentum makes it very clear that it is our duty to do so.

“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.” (RS 183)

It isn’t a case of an action having to ‘overly exceed’ what was intended. What is intended is outlined in the rubrics of the Liturgy. The norms of the Church must be conformed to.

“The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart.” (RS 5)

When we start going down the path of thinking “How can we adapt our Liturgy to meet the needs of the congregation today?” or “How can we make the Liturgy more relevant” we are viewing the Liturgy as something that serves the people, and viewing the priest (or worse still, a parish liturgical committee) as the person to decide how the Liturgy should be adapted best serve the needs of the people.

This is looking at things upside down. The Liturgy is not there to serve us, we are there to serve the Liturgy.

“Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy.” (RS 169)

“A real falsification”, those are very strong words.

 

[JM3]

The Liturgy is not there to serve us, we are there to serve the Liturgy.

I don’t think an absolute statement like this is correct. It seems to me that it’s not one or the other, but both.

CCC 1069 The word “liturgy” originally meant a “public work” or a “service in the name of/on behalf of the people.”
In Christian tradition it means the participation of the People of God in "the work of God."5
Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redemption in, with, and through his Church.

1070 In the New Testament the word “liturgy” refers not only to the celebration of divine worship but also to the proclamation of the Gospel and to active charity.6 In all of these situations it is a question of the service of God and neighbor.

What would please God more, incense or charity?

 

[Brendan_64]

What would please God more, incense or charity?

Does one preclude the other?

It is a false dichotomy to think that somehow adherence to the Liturgy detracts from charity. It is not a case of proper Liturgy, or proper charity, it should be proper Liturgy and proper charity. I have heard it implied that too much focus on ‘high’ Liturgy detracts us from giving charity. That is simply not the case, and can be used as an excuse by those who wish to justify a ‘lower’ Liturgy. It is a false argument. Glorifying God by giving Him the best that we can give, does not in any way detract from our ability to be charitable to others.

 

[ProVobis]

Full, active and conscious participation does not extend to designing and adapting the form of the Liturgy. The rubrics are to be followed and deliberate deviation from the rubrics is considered an abuse .

Actions that are allowed are not the issue.

Yes we can make those judgments, and we ought to. Redemptionis Sacramentum makes it very clear that it is our duty to do so.

Everything isn’t always that black and white. For example, I understand a certain amount of adlibbing is allowed by the priest during Mass. But at what point is it considered an abuse? Sometimes at the Spanish Mass I attend, there is 5-10 minutes of “sermon” before any of the text is read. And they never seem to use the right Gloria and skip the Creed sometimes. But there are also a lot of kids there, so what’s the issue? How do I even know the bishop has disallowed this?

 

[ProVobis]

No one said they are loose suggestions. Rubrics is Latin for red, because the writing is in read. I think properly, they could be labeled instructions.

True, and they are usually referred to as “general” instructions. They may have to be “bent” to accommodate a church’s architecture, for example, or address different cultures or groups. I could say in the EF, the general rule is to stand whenever the priest sings. But there are a couple of instances, such as the Epistle, when we sit. The general rule is not violated.

 

[Brendan_64]

Everything isn’t always that black and white. For example, I understand a certain amount of adlibbing is allowed by the priest during Mass. But at what point is it considered an abuse? Sometimes at the Spanish Mass I attend, there is 5-10 minutes of “sermon” before any of the text is read. And they never seem to use the right Gloria and skip the Creed sometimes. But there are also a lot of kids there, so what’s the issue? How do I even know the bishop has disallowed this?

“The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart.” RS 5

“The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”. On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free reign to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,[29] but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline.” RS 11

“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” RS 12

The Liturgy must be carried out according to the norms of the Church, and as a lay Catholic you have a right to insist that this happens.

If it is not allowed for in the norms of the Church, then it is a liturgical abuse.

 

[Brendan_64]

I could say in the EF, the general rule is to stand whenever the priest sings. But there are a couple of instances, such as the Epistle, when we sit. The general rule is not violated.

The laity are not bound by the rubrics. The laity may stand, sit, kneel as they wish. The same does not apply to the clergy.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

But the OP isn’t talking about Mass.

Since we are talking about incense at benediction, I would suggest that it is better that the faithful have the opportunity for adoration, than that it is curtailed because there is no incense.

That said I also think it behooves the OP and others in a similar situation to inquire as to the reason why something is happening or isn’t happening before lodging complaints of abuse.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

“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.” (RS 183)

I don’t think not using incense would normally be considered an irreverence or abuse of the Blessed Sacrament.

More so though, I’m sorry, I mean that, truly sorry, you have reduced the worship of God back to where it was when Jesus came and spoke against those who condemned the “rulebreakers”.

This is looking at things upside down. The Liturgy is not there to serve us, we are there to serve the Liturgy.

I’m sorry, but you have Christ inverted.

25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 26 how he entered the house of God, when Abi′athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” 27 And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath;

While I understand your desire to connect more through adherence to the guidelines, when religion is reduced to following a set of rules rather than those outlining optimum practice, is draws the life out of our connection with Christ through the church. It becomes the “law” which Paul spoke about bringing nothing but death.

As stated, I appreciate your concern and desire for connection through practice, but invite you to look at and make a distinction between what is optimum and what is reasonable.

 

[Brendan_64]

I don’t think not using incense would normally be considered an irreverence or abuse of the Blessed Sacrament.

Not for simple exposoition it wouldn’t, but for solemn exposition it would.

IMore so though, I’m sorry, I mean that, truly sorry, you have reduced the worship of God back to where it was when Jesus came and spoke against those who condemned the “rulebreakers”.

I’m sorry, but you have Christ inverted.

I have quoted Redemptionis Sacramentum. Was John Paul II also guilty of inverting Christ by producing this document?

I25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 26 how he entered the house of God, when Abi′athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him? 27 And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath;

It is for the Magisterium of the Church to interpret scripture for us. Scripture often contains messages that are open to interpretation, and sometimes scripture can seem to contradict itself. It is not for us as individuals, but for the Church to interpret scripture.

IWhile I understand your desire to connect more through adherence to the guidelines, when religion is reduced to following a set of rules rather than those outlining optimum practice, is draws the life out of our connection with Christ through the church. It becomes the “law” which Paul spoke about bringing nothing but death.

This is not reducing religion to a set of guidelines. This is simply highlighting what the Church has deemed to be the fit and proper way to carry out the Liturgy, and we are all bound to adhere to the authority of the Church on this.

IAs stated, I appreciate your concern and desire for connection through practice, but invite you to look at and make a distinction between what is optimum and what is reasonable.

The Church does not insist that a priest does anything unreasonable. Adherence to the rubrics and norms of the Church is not an unreasonable demand. We are bound to adhere to this. Some people may wish to ignore the fact that we are bound to follow the Church on such matters, but nevertheless we are bound.

If insisting that the rubrics and norms of the Church as regards the Liturgy, are to be followed without deviation, as laid down by the Church, is to be guilty of inverting Christ, then that charge ought also to be placed upon both John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

 

[JM3]

Does one preclude the other?

How are you worshipping God by judging His priest?

anyone who acts thus by giving free reign to his own inclinations

Perhaps this should be given more thought.

 

[Brendan_64]

That said I also think it behooves the OP and others in a similar situation to inquire as to the reason why something is happening or isn’t happening before lodging complaints of abuse.

That is certainly true. To make a complaint without first contacting the priest himself would to be guilty of not acting in the spirit of charity. And if after contacting the priest, the person still feels the need to make a complaint, it is only decent to make the priest aware that you are going to do this, before you actually make the complaint.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I will just acknowledge we will continue to have differing viewpoints on this and bow out of the thread.

PAX

 

[Brendan_64]

How are you worshipping God by judging His priest?

Insisting that the Liturgy be carried out as the Church requires it to be is not judging anyone. In Redemptionis Sacramentum John Paul II makes it clear that it is not just our right, but our duty to correct abuses to the Liturgy where we see them, and if necessary to lodge complaints with the local ordinary, or the CDW.

Perhaps this should be given more thought.

The need to correct abuses of the Liturgy is a duty of all the Catholic faithful, be they laity or clergy. John Paul II made this very clear.

 

[ProVobis]

“The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart.” RS 5

“The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”. On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free reign to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,[29] but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline.” RS 11

“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” RS 12

The Liturgy must be carried out according to the norms of the Church, and as a lay Catholic you have a right to insist that this happens.

If it is not allowed for in the norms of the Church, then it is a liturgical abuse.

That’s good but you didn’t answer the question of how does one get around his bishop when he perceives something isn’t done according to the rubrics, or norms as you call them? If the bishop allows it, how does one remind him of the RS?

 

[Brendan_64]

That’s good but you didn’t answer the question of how does one get around his bishop when he perceives something isn’t done according to the rubrics, or norms as you call them?

Canon 392 (on the bishop): Since he must safeguard the unity of the universal Church, the Bishop is bound to promote the discipline common to the entire Church and therefore to insist upon the observance of all ecclesiastical laws. He is to be watchful lest abuses encroach upon ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the Word, the celebration of the Sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the Saints”

If the bishop does not insist on the observance of all ecclesiastical laws then he is guilty of not safeguarding the unity of the universal Church, and of failing to carry out the duties bound upon him by the Church. If I was a bishop, I’m not sure I would want such things on my conscience.

I guess a complaint could, in theory, be made to the CDW. Although complaining against a bishop is a very serious matter indeed.