How strict should one get on the rubrics?

[felsguy]

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.

Somehow I doubt that His Holiness intended to create a billion member police force, each with the Vatican on speed dial.

 

[Brendan_64]

Somehow I doubt that His Holiness intended to create a billion member police force, each with the Vatican on speed dial.

Well he ought not to have stated in RS that we all (laity included) have a duty to protect the Liturgy from abuses and a right to lodge a complaint regarding abuses of the Liturgy

“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

“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. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.” RS 184

Perhaps you ought to read the document before implying that Pope John Paul II did not actually want the laity to lodge complaints regarding abuses of the Liturgy.

 

[Brendan]

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?

There is also Pastor Aeternus - Vatican I

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

Ch3 para 2

 

[felsguy]

Well he ought not to have stated in RS that we all (laity included) have a duty to protect the Liturgy from abuses and a right to lodge a complaint regarding abuses of the Liturgy

“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

“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. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.” RS 184

Perhaps you ought to read the document before implying that Pope John Paul II did not actually want the laity to lodge complaints regarding abuses of the Liturgy.

It is certainly not for me to say what His Holiness ought or ought not to have stated

It is likewise not appropriate for me to say how others are to interpret and carry out this “most serious duty”.

It is permissible, I believe given the norms of CAF, for me to observe that some individuals give the impression that they constantly and intensely carry out their understanding of this duty but it is not permissible for me or anyone to pass judgment on them and so I shall refrain.

Now in regards to the request in the OP for “a kind and patient word of advice” here’s the oft used “here’s what I do” response. Even though I have a love for and knowledge of the liturgy including leading several RCIA discussions each year on the meaning and celebration of the Mass, the furthest thing on my mind when I attend Mass is being on the lookout for a violation of a rubric and on those very rare occasions that I might notice one, I choose to limit my actions to a frown, grimace, grinding of the teeth, or a minor rant to my long suffering wife on the way home. I consider that I have remained a faithful and obedient although far from perfect son of the Church. But again, that’s just what I do.

 

[pnewton]

“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.

Note what is being condemned; acting on a whim and giving free reign to one’s own inclination. This does not bind a bishop from doing his job as the from interpreting and implementing the liturgy in his diocese. With the issuance of this encyclical, not one change was made in canon law taking this duty from the bishop.

 

[pnewton]

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 is a serious consideration. It is possible, if one were to push the point, even if you “won”, your prize might be no Eucharistic adoration at all.

 

[pnewton]

“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.

The problem is that this assumes both abuse and disrespect. To the extent the Holy Eucharist is treated irreverently, then one should accept a burden to correct it. For example, if a communicant were to flip the Body of Christ like a coin or attempt to carry it off, then that is a serious issue that has a serious duty. In this case, is the priest being irreverent? I wasn’t there, so I don’t know. We mustn’t use RS to just beg the question.

 

[pnewton]

There is also Pastor Aeternus - Vatican I

Ch3 para 2

Yes, but that also includes submitting to Canon Law and accepting the role of the bishop. After all, Canon Law is still in effect. It does not change with each pontiff.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, but that also includes submitting to Canon Law and accepting the role of the bishop. After all, Canon Law is still in effect. It does not change with each pontiff.

True, but it is likewise a call for the bishops to be obedient to the instructions laid down by Rome.

The role of the Bishop, then is to restrict his legislation to within the bounds set by the Holy See. Nothing more, nothing less.

That is also provided for in Canon Law ( particularly in Canon 16). The CDWDS has reserved for itself the right to interpret the GIRM authentically.

And, as the legislator of RS, they would hold the Canonical right to authentically interpret RS too, would they not?

And the CDWDS interpretations, like those of the GIRM, per Canon 16, would hold the force of law.

 

[pnewton]

True, but it is likewise a call for the bishops to be obedient to the instructions laid down by Rome.

The role of the Bishop, then is to restrict his legislation to within the bounds set by the Holy See. Nothing more, nothing less.

That is also provided for in Canon Law ( particularly in Canon 16). The CDWDS has reserved for itself the right to interpret the GIRM authentically.

Canon 16

The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

“…authentically interprets* laws*” This applies to Canon Law, not the GIRM.

As to what a bishop is called to do, that is not within our concern. Besides, the vast majority of bottom-up action does little more than just beg the question of what is “within the bound”, an abuse or is the proper interpretation. No organization can function without authority. Rule are useless without it. Instructions require authority to implement.

 

[Brendan]

Canon 16
“…authentically interprets* laws*” This applies to Canon Law, not the GIRM.

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

While the desirability of everyone in the congregation making the common gestures and postures throughout the Mass is clear (a sign of unity), recent interpretations of these norms by the Holy See provides some insight into the mind of the Church. It should be noted that the Holy See alone can authentically interpret legislation it has initiated or approved

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.

 

[Brendan]

Pnewton,

I would like for you to clarify what right do you feel that a Bishop has under Canon Law.

If the CDWDS declares an act to be abusive of the liturgy, do you hold that

1. The bishop has a Canonical Right to continue to abuse the liturgy

Or

1. The bishop has a conical right to tell that CDWDS, that in his diocese, the CDWDS committed an error in it’s declaration that the activity is an abuse?

Which one of those two do you feel is true?

 

[pnewton]

I hold that I am not a bishop.

If the Holy Father asks for certain practices to cease, as was done in Redemptonis Sacramentum, the I think a bishop would heed that request.

The Roman Curia though, works for the Holy Father, so I do not know how they would be telling some bishop what to do or how to do his job. The Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship is not “over” a bishop. We are dealing with brothers, not supervisors and subordinates. Only the Holy Father is over a bishop, as evidenced that he alone can remove a bishop. So I do not understand the question. I would expect such discussions to take place privately, if they occur at all, and be of no concern to me.

To check myself, I went to their website. They really do not do much on their own authority.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/index.htm

 

[pnewton]

I think the motive of a priest or bishop does matter. Is a liturgical decision made for pastoral reasons(for the good of the faithful)? Is any deviation significant? Has the action being taken been reprobated? Are the decisions in line with what the Church is wanting you to do?

These are the things I would think about, if I was a bishop. Some of the things they deal with are pretty tough. I do not envy them and never wish to second guess what they do, or what their priests do in their name. I have no “grave duty” to second guess them or oppose then, as long as I see no sacrilege. I think the Franciscans have the best take on obedience and I like to emulate them when it comes to the Church. I also recognize the liturgy does grow organically, therefore, it cannot by definition be stagnate. I think for the time being, I will ask myself, “What would Pope Francis do?” (my apologies to JRE on this. I used to plug his username in that formula)

 

[Brendan_64]

I think the motive of a priest or bishop does matter. Is a liturgical decision made for pastoral reasons(for the good of the faithful)? Is any deviation significant? Has the action being taken been reprobated?

If it is not allowed for in the norms of Church law then it is an abuse. Pastoral care is not a justification for an abuse of the liturgy.

“Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage.”

Are the decisions in line with what the Church is wanting you to do?

What the Church wants us to to is to be found in the laws of the Church and in her teachings.

We get onto to very shaky ground when individual clergy decide what they think the Church wants them to do, and we’re back into all the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ nonsense which led to the widespread abuses of the Liturgy. It was that which prompted John Paul II to issue RS in order to crack down on liturgical ‘innovation’. Such ‘iinovation’ was a result of many priests basing their actions on following what they thought the Church wanted them to do (despite the fact that this wasn’t written down in Church laws, and despite).

 

[pnewton]

If it is not allowed for in the norms of Church law then it is an abuse. Pastoral care is not a justification for an abuse of the liturgy.

“Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage.”

Again begging the question. What actions are you referring to? The ones that the above sentence are referring to are:

"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 rein to his own inclinations,

Antecedents matter. This is why bishops are in charge and no laymen. The laity overlook things like antecedents and tie admonitions according to their own opinion. Continuing, we read, " For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal, 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."

Anything and everything is not condemned. What is condemned are (1)treating the Eucharist according to one’s whims, (2)giving free rein to one’s own inclinations, and (3)acting arbitrarily. These three things are condemned. Everything the laity thinks is an abuse is not condemned.

 

[Brendan_64]

Yet, as a member of the Catholic faithful have a right to insist that the Liturgy is carried out in accordance with the norms of the Church. It is not for the priest to decide that we ought to receive a Liturgy that deviates from these norms, even if he, or his liturgical team, or even the majority of the congregation, thinks we ought to modify the Liturgy. This is made very clear.

“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.” RS12

How the Church wishes the Liturgy to be carried out is that it is carried out “according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms”.

A case of, “Well the Church stipulates that, but we think that the Church is pointing us in this way, and this would meet the needs of the People of God better, and will help us reach out better, so we will modify our Liturgy accordingly” is not a valid position for a priest, liturgical team, or congregation to take. To take such a position would be to deny the right of a member(s) of the Church faithful to have the Liturgy carried out according to the stipulations as prescribed in the Church’s liturgical books and in the other laws and norms of the Church.

The fact that modifications to the Liturgy may be made with the best of intentions is not relevant.

 

[Brendan]

I hold that I am not a bishop.

If the Holy Father asks for certain practices to cease, as was done in Redemptonis Sacramentum, the I think a bishop would heed that request.

But that did not happen in LA in regards to the pouring of the species of wine from flagons. The CDWDS, with the approval and signature of the Pope declared that to be a ‘grave abuse’ of the Blessed Sacrament, yet the local Ordinary went so far as to inform his priests that the practice would continue. Whom should the Catholics have followed in that matter? Should what Rome has defined to be an abuse be continued with no objections from the faithful?

The Roman Curia though, works for the Holy Father, so I do not know how they would be telling some bishop what to do or how to do his job. The Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship is not “over” a bishop. We are dealing with brothers, not supervisors and subordinates. Only the Holy Father is over a bishop, as evidenced that he alone can remove a bishop. So I do not understand the question. I would expect such discussions to take place privately, if they occur at all, and be of no concern to me.

Bishops are certainly equal in dignity, not in authority. A local Ordinary, for example, IS placed over auxiliary bishops assigned to his diocese. His authority, delegated by the Holy See is territorial.

The Dicastaries also have certain authority, also delegated (originating ) from the Holy See.

So within the competencies of the authority granted to them by the Pope, they are authoritative. In the case of the CDWDS, that would be Authority of the Liturgy.

Since Aquinas defined the Virtue of Obedience is the conformation of one’s Will to the Will of the one with Authority, would we not desire our priests and bishops to be Virtuous and encourage them to be so in every way we can?

To check myself, I went to their website. They really do not do much on their own authority.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/index.htm

Correct, the authority they exercise is that which is granted to them by the Pope.

 

[Brendan]

Here is an example of the CDWDS specifically noting it’s competency to tell the US Bishops how the GIRM must be interpreted. This was in regards to the previous GIRM 160

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “… while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”

 

[pnewton]

Since Aquinas defined the Virtue of Obedience is the conformation of one’s Will to the Will of the one with Authority, would we not desire our priests and bishops to be Virtuous and encourage them to be so in every way we can?.

That would mean something to me if I were a bishop. For me, this is not something I consider. I obey my priest and the bishop and let the priest obey his bishop and the bishop obey the Holy Father. The difference between you and me is that I have no expertise in canon law and am not a licensed liturgist, so I do not ever think my opinion of the bishop’s job is more excellent than his opinion, in a field in which he is an expert and I am not.